Poor ice cream soda

"I can't get no satisfaction"

It's hard to make a poor ice cream soda, but the Baskin Robbins in Deerfield accomplished that feat this evening.

I rarely eat ice cream, so I want it to be good when I do have some. After shopping at the Deerfield Barnes & Noble, Wife #1 and I were both craving ice cream. So we walked across Waukegan Road to the local Baskin Robbins and I ordered a soda for us to share.

The regular-size soda was in a cup of about 12 ounce size, though not filled to the top.

The soda was composed of four squirts of chocolate syrup, lots of fizzy water and one scoop of vanilla ice cream, not shaken but stirred a bit. That's it. All for $3.47 + tax. I hope they don't go broke due to material costs. We weren't even offered the option of whipped cream.

It was a thin, pathetic excuse of an ice cream soda, lacking the richness one expects. There was nothing to savor and linger over, so we finished it more quickly than we wanted. As we walked out, vowing never to return, I felt a craving to go to Homer's for some good ice cream, but resisted the urge.

Had I known beforehand what it would be like, we certainly would have driven the six or eight miles to Homer's.

I don't expect Baskin Robbins to have great ice cream, but generally it's been decent and satisfying. They're a franchise operation and the problem may just be with the local operator (the place even smelled a little odd inside).

This experience reminds me of a recent post (I think it was re Olive Garden) about how corporate operations prefer to give you bland, flavorless food so you won't feel satisfied and will order more.

Years ago a friend told me he lost weight by eating only food that he really liked, but in small quantities. At the time I was skeptical, but now realize he was right. If food is tasty you are content afterward. But if it's not very good, you crave more of something to eat as you try to achieve satisfaction.

Baskin-Robbins
671 Waukegan Road
Deerfield
847-940-8343

Homer's Ice Cream
1237 Green Bay Road
Wilmette
847-251-0477

Years ago a friend told me he lost weight by eating only food that he really liked, but in small quantities. At the time I was skeptical, but now realize he was right. If food is tasty you are content afterward. But if it's not very good, you crave more of something to eat as you try to achieve satisfaction.

Just today, I heard the brain is triggered by a food's sweetness and viscosity to cut off your appetite. The more sweet and thick, a marker for more highly caloric foods, the less you eat. However, artificially sweetened products don't cause this trigger, consequently more is eaten proportionately.

artificially sweetened products don't cause this trigger, consequently more is eaten proportionately.

I heard the same thing too. Also about potato chips made with -what was that oil, from awhile ago called?- Olio? That it just wasn't satisfying. Same with reduced-fat stuff.

My other thought is that when something isn't very good, we eat it quickly. When it's delicious, we take the time to savor it, figuring out each bite's flavor and texture. The more slowly you eat, the less you eat. (Usually )

*

I used to run some therapy groups that used a lot of mindfulness techniques. One of them is to eat, say, a piece of chocolate or a cherry very, very slowly. E.G., you examine it, noticing the colors and textures and shapes, you put it in your mouth, you think about biting, you wait, then you bite down excruciatingly slowly, (this is sounding like porn, bear with me), you *truly* taste every drop. It should take a good 2-3 minutes to have this one bite.
Every single time we did this exercise, someone in the group would remark, "if I ate everything this way, I would eat a lot less, because this is so satisfying."

messycook,was that Olestra?I think that is the name of it.

was that Olestra?

Yeah I think so. Besides it being less-than-satisfying, many people had gross lower GI reactions to it. Blech.