|
Hello TL!
Today's recipe is a very light, low-calorie meal. :D
INGREDIENTS
- salt
- pepper
- 1/2 tablespoon of oregano
- 1/2 tablespoon of thyme
- 1 1/2 tablespoons of olive oil
- 2 tablespoons of minced garlic
- 1 1/2 cup of diced mushrooms
- 1/2 cup of quinoa (+ 1 cups of water for cooking)
- 1/2 of an onion, diced
- 1 zucchini, diced
- 1/3 lb of ground chicken breast
- 6 large beefsteak tomatoes
- OPTIONAL: 1/2 cup of feta cheese
PROCEDURE
Total prep time will be about 35 minutes. Cook time will be about 40 minutes. This will make 3 servings (2 tomatoes each)
Calories per serving: ~340 calories
- Slice the tops off of your tomatoes. Carefully hollow out the insides of the tomatoes using a spoon. Make sure you get rid of most of the seeds.
- Salt the insides of the tomatoes and place paper towels or napkins inside of the hollowed tomato. Flip tomatoes upside down and allow the tomatoes to drain for about 20 minutes. During this time, prep the rest of your ingredients.
- Set a pot with 1 cup of water to boil. Thoroughly rinse your quinoa and cook as recommended by the packaging (a little under 15 minutes or so). Season the quinoa with salt. Stir occasionally.
- Set a skillet on high heat and add in 1/2 tablespoons of olive oil.
- When the skillet becomes hot, saute your chopped vegetables. Season with half of your salt, pepper, oregano, thyme, and minced garlic. Cook for about 5 minutes.
- Remove vegetables from the skillet and set aside.
- Add the remainder of your olive oil to the skillet. Add in your ground chicken breast and season with the rest of the salt, pepper, oregano, thyme, and minced garlic. Cook until browned (~7 minutes).
- When quinoa is done, add in the cooked ground chicken and vegetables. Combine thoroughly.
- Preheat your oven to 375° F (190° C).
- Remove paper towels from tomatoes and begin stuffing each tomato with the quinoa filling.
- OPTIONAL: Add feta cheese on top of each tomato.
- Place tomato tops back onto the tomatoes.
- Roast in the oven for about 25 minutes.
- Eat!
Ta-da!
![[image loading]](http://kierpanda.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/blog_stuffedtomatoes_done.jpg)
For the full blog post, visit my website here
If you've enjoyed my blog, please like my facebook page as well. :D
By the way, I've been featured as the Fan Creation of the Week for Diablo III!!
![[image loading]](http://kierpanda.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/fancreation_oftheweek.png)
omgg
You can read the article about that on the official D3 website here.
Thanks for reading, TL!
 
|
United States33425 Posts
could you tell hot_bid how to pronounce 'quinoa' for the love of god?
|
CA10828 Posts
obviously pronounced "kwih-no-ah"
nice recipe. looks tasty and healthy!
|
hahaha that tomatoe soo cute
|
i always thought eat game live was pronounced "live" like "alive" but i just realized its a verb not a noun
:O
|
What is your opinion on quinoa, in terms of flavor and texture? Its suppose to be the "king of grains" so I thought about replacing my essential white rice with it... Temporarily =D
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On March 25 2013 05:23 Waxangel wrote:
could you tell hot_bid how to pronounce 'quinoa' for the love of god?
I could benefit from this information as well.
|
On March 25 2013 07:57 Disregard wrote:
What is your opinion on quinoa, in terms of flavor and texture? Its suppose to be the "king of grains" so I thought about replacing my essential white rice with it... Temporarily =D
I personally love quinoa. It's a very fluffy grain-like seed with a very subtle nutty flavor.
When in doubt, just try it out. :D It's not too expensive (maybe a dollar more than regular rice).
|
On March 25 2013 05:23 Waxangel wrote:
could you tell hot_bid how to pronounce 'quinoa' for the love of god?
pretty sure it "keen-wha"
|
|
|
that article makes no sense.
1. the article says that western demand for quinoa has driven up prices so much that the locals cannot afford it. while the fact that increased demand causes increased prices is true, it ignores the other important point - that the people who are selling the quinoa are getting richer. it also expands the market for quinoa, leading to increased investment, better technologies, more jobs, higher yield, and more productivity. no reasonable state will say "no! stop buying our exports! you're increasing the demand too much!" because it's good for the state (except in very specific cases).
2. the article says that quinoa being grown in europe is going to hurt the bolivians. lolwut? so first, the article says that if people buy bolivia's stuff, it hurts bolivia... now it's saying that if other people make the same stuff as bolivia, thus lowering the price of the good, it ALSO hurts bolivia? the article is so confused about who benefits, and in what way. other people growing quinoa is GOOD for the locals not in the quinoa industry because it drives down prices. it hurts the farmers because they face more competition.
here's what increased demand for quinoa does for bolivians
- increase price (good for quinoa growers, bad for quinoa eaters)
- increase jobs, investment, productivity, productivity (good for everyone)
- increase demand for quinoa substitutes (good for people who make this stuff)
here's what more quinoa being grown in other countries does for bolivians:
- decrease price (good for quinoa eaters, bad for growers)
if you want to help the locals without supporting the farmers (maybe they're the land-owning elite super rich), you can only do so by making more quinoa. if you dont buy quinoa because you dont support the farmers, you will also hurt the locals.
edit - the article also makes it sound like bolivia's president is doing a good thing for its people by providing loans to the quinoa growers. yes, this will help lower the cost of quinoa a little, but at the "loss" of massive profits for the already-rich. a better way to alleviate the issue would be to lower market entrance barriers to the industry. or, since the industry is probably saturated (no more arable land), stimulate other industries that bolivia has a competitive advantage in. this helps out everyone, especially the poorer peoples, raises standards of living so that they can actually buy the quinoa, and gives the bolivians something to export that other countries want - other countries which may be growing quinoa.
|
On March 25 2013 23:33 ieatkids5 wrote:that article makes no sense. 1. the article says that western demand for quinoa has driven up prices so much that the locals cannot afford it. while the fact that increased demand causes increased prices is true, it ignores the other important point - that the people who are selling the quinoa are getting richer. it also expands the market for quinoa, leading to increased investment, better technologies, more jobs, higher yield, and more productivity. no reasonable state will say "no! stop buying our exports! you're increasing the demand too much!" because it's good for the state (except in very specific cases). 2. the article says that quinoa being grown in europe is going to hurt the bolivians. lolwut? so first, the article says that if people buy bolivia's stuff, it hurts bolivia... now it's saying that if other people make the same stuff as bolivia, thus lowering the price of the good, it ALSO hurts bolivia? the article is so confused about who benefits, and in what way. other people growing quinoa is GOOD for the locals not in the quinoa industry because it drives down prices. it hurts the farmers because they face more competition. here's what increased demand for quinoa does for bolivians - increase price (good for quinoa growers, bad for quinoa eaters) - increase jobs, investment, productivity, productivity (good for everyone) - increase demand for quinoa substitutes (good for people who make this stuff) here's what more quinoa being grown in other countries does for bolivians: - decrease price (good for quinoa eaters, bad for growers) if you want to help the locals without supporting the farmers (maybe they're the land-owning elite super rich), you can only do so by making more quinoa. if you dont buy quinoa because you dont support the farmers, you will also hurt the locals. edit - the article also makes it sound like bolivia's president is doing a good thing for its people by providing loans to the quinoa growers. yes, this will help lower the cost of quinoa a little, but at the "loss" of massive profits for the already-rich. a better way to alleviate the issue would be to lower market entrance barriers to the industry. or, since the industry is probably saturated (no more arable land), stimulate other industries that bolivia has a competitive advantage in. this helps out everyone, especially the poorer peoples, raises standards of living so that they can actually buy the quinoa, and gives the bolivians something to export that other countries want - other countries which may be growing quinoa.
Right, but not everyone in Bolivia is growing quinoa. A lot of Bolivians can't afford their basic food crop now because it's going into the mouths of folks elsewhere. So what should they do?
Well - they could just increase quinoa production, but do we really want to decrease the economic diversity in that country? Take this effect to its extreme, and it will resemble what Hershey's did to the Ivory Coast - they turned the entire country into one giant cocoa plantation and that raised GDP, but they also made that GDP massively volatile depending on cocoa prices - which left the country destitute a decade later, with soils ruined by overcultivation and monocropping. Industry couldn't develop in the Ivory Coast because workers had to be paid thirty percent what they were paid in neighboring countries since all food was imported and hence more expensive.
Providing Bolivia with incentives to overspecialize in producing a cash crop driven by a health fad, of all things, is going to harm its industrial development in a similar fashion.
Developmental economics is never as simple as a pure neoclassical model would suggest.
/end rant
To Kier - sorry for hijacking your blog
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
I always learnt that it was pronounced keen-wha
now i dont know who to trust.
|
On March 25 2013 23:49 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 23:33 ieatkids5 wrote:that article makes no sense. 1. the article says that western demand for quinoa has driven up prices so much that the locals cannot afford it. while the fact that increased demand causes increased prices is true, it ignores the other important point - that the people who are selling the quinoa are getting richer. it also expands the market for quinoa, leading to increased investment, better technologies, more jobs, higher yield, and more productivity. no reasonable state will say "no! stop buying our exports! you're increasing the demand too much!" because it's good for the state (except in very specific cases). 2. the article says that quinoa being grown in europe is going to hurt the bolivians. lolwut? so first, the article says that if people buy bolivia's stuff, it hurts bolivia... now it's saying that if other people make the same stuff as bolivia, thus lowering the price of the good, it ALSO hurts bolivia? the article is so confused about who benefits, and in what way. other people growing quinoa is GOOD for the locals not in the quinoa industry because it drives down prices. it hurts the farmers because they face more competition. here's what increased demand for quinoa does for bolivians - increase price (good for quinoa growers, bad for quinoa eaters) - increase jobs, investment, productivity, productivity (good for everyone) - increase demand for quinoa substitutes (good for people who make this stuff) here's what more quinoa being grown in other countries does for bolivians: - decrease price (good for quinoa eaters, bad for growers) if you want to help the locals without supporting the farmers (maybe they're the land-owning elite super rich), you can only do so by making more quinoa. if you dont buy quinoa because you dont support the farmers, you will also hurt the locals. edit - the article also makes it sound like bolivia's president is doing a good thing for its people by providing loans to the quinoa growers. yes, this will help lower the cost of quinoa a little, but at the "loss" of massive profits for the already-rich. a better way to alleviate the issue would be to lower market entrance barriers to the industry. or, since the industry is probably saturated (no more arable land), stimulate other industries that bolivia has a competitive advantage in. this helps out everyone, especially the poorer peoples, raises standards of living so that they can actually buy the quinoa, and gives the bolivians something to export that other countries want - other countries which may be growing quinoa. Right, but not everyone in Bolivia is growing quinoa. A lot of Bolivians can't afford their basic food crop now because it's going into the mouths of folks elsewhere. So what should they do?
i wasn't implying any sort of moral judgment on the increased demand for quinoa. i just wanted to point out the important aspects of the issue that the article ignored. i also wanted to explain the lack of logic in the arguments presented by the article - it first argues that increased demand for quinoa is bad for bolivia, and then it says that increaed supply of quinoa elsewhere is bad for bolivia. all im saying is, it's not that simple - there are winners and losers for each, and the winners and losers differ in the short and long term as well.
but to answer your question, as i mentioned in the edit in my previous post - i think something better would be to stimulate the other industries of bolivia (not quinoa, and theres probably no arable land left anyways, and i dont think land reform/redistribution is a good idea).
Well - they could just increase quinoa production, but do we really want to decrease the economic diversity in that country? Take this effect to its extreme, and it will resemble what Hershey's did to the Ivory Coast - they turned the entire country into one giant cocoa plantation and that raised GDP, but they also made that GDP massively volatile depending on cocoa prices - which left the country destitute a decade later, with soils ruined by overcultivation and monocropping. Industry couldn't develop in the Ivory Coast because workers had to be paid thirty percent what they were paid in neighboring countries since all food was imported and hence more expensive.
Providing Bolivia with incentives to overspecialize in producing a cash crop driven by a health fad, of all things, is going to harm its industrial development in a similar fashion.
Developmental economics is never as simple as a pure neoclassical model would suggest.
/end rant
To Kier - sorry for hijacking your blog
maybe you misunderstood my post? i was talking about stimulating other industries (not quinoa), aka diversifying. neoclassical development would suggest that we allow the market to operate at pareto efficiency without government intervention.
|
On March 26 2013 00:03 ieatkids5 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 23:49 Shady Sands wrote:On March 25 2013 23:33 ieatkids5 wrote:that article makes no sense. 1. the article says that western demand for quinoa has driven up prices so much that the locals cannot afford it. while the fact that increased demand causes increased prices is true, it ignores the other important point - that the people who are selling the quinoa are getting richer. it also expands the market for quinoa, leading to increased investment, better technologies, more jobs, higher yield, and more productivity. no reasonable state will say "no! stop buying our exports! you're increasing the demand too much!" because it's good for the state (except in very specific cases). 2. the article says that quinoa being grown in europe is going to hurt the bolivians. lolwut? so first, the article says that if people buy bolivia's stuff, it hurts bolivia... now it's saying that if other people make the same stuff as bolivia, thus lowering the price of the good, it ALSO hurts bolivia? the article is so confused about who benefits, and in what way. other people growing quinoa is GOOD for the locals not in the quinoa industry because it drives down prices. it hurts the farmers because they face more competition. here's what increased demand for quinoa does for bolivians - increase price (good for quinoa growers, bad for quinoa eaters) - increase jobs, investment, productivity, productivity (good for everyone) - increase demand for quinoa substitutes (good for people who make this stuff) here's what more quinoa being grown in other countries does for bolivians: - decrease price (good for quinoa eaters, bad for growers) if you want to help the locals without supporting the farmers (maybe they're the land-owning elite super rich), you can only do so by making more quinoa. if you dont buy quinoa because you dont support the farmers, you will also hurt the locals. edit - the article also makes it sound like bolivia's president is doing a good thing for its people by providing loans to the quinoa growers. yes, this will help lower the cost of quinoa a little, but at the "loss" of massive profits for the already-rich. a better way to alleviate the issue would be to lower market entrance barriers to the industry. or, since the industry is probably saturated (no more arable land), stimulate other industries that bolivia has a competitive advantage in. this helps out everyone, especially the poorer peoples, raises standards of living so that they can actually buy the quinoa, and gives the bolivians something to export that other countries want - other countries which may be growing quinoa. Right, but not everyone in Bolivia is growing quinoa. A lot of Bolivians can't afford their basic food crop now because it's going into the mouths of folks elsewhere. So what should they do? i wasn't implying any sort of moral judgment on the increased demand for quinoa. i just wanted to point out the important aspects of the issue that the article ignored. i also wanted to explain the lack of logic in the arguments presented by the article - it first argues that increased demand for quinoa is bad for bolivia, and then it says that increaed supply of quinoa elsewhere is bad for bolivia. all im saying is, it's not that simple - there are winners and losers for each, and the winners and losers differ in the short and long term as well. but to answer your question, as i mentioned in the edit in my previous post - i think something better would be to stimulate the other industries of bolivia (not quinoa, and theres probably no arable land left anyways, and i dont think land reform/redistribution is a good idea). Show nested quote +Well - they could just increase quinoa production, but do we really want to decrease the economic diversity in that country? Take this effect to its extreme, and it will resemble what Hershey's did to the Ivory Coast - they turned the entire country into one giant cocoa plantation and that raised GDP, but they also made that GDP massively volatile depending on cocoa prices - which left the country destitute a decade later, with soils ruined by overcultivation and monocropping. Industry couldn't develop in the Ivory Coast because workers had to be paid thirty percent what they were paid in neighboring countries since all food was imported and hence more expensive.
Providing Bolivia with incentives to overspecialize in producing a cash crop driven by a health fad, of all things, is going to harm its industrial development in a similar fashion.
Developmental economics is never as simple as a pure neoclassical model would suggest.
/end rant
To Kier - sorry for hijacking your blog maybe you misunderstood my post? i was talking about stimulating other industries (not quinoa), aka diversifying. neoclassical development would suggest that we allow the market to operate at pareto efficiency without government intervention.
Blech - too crushed by work to respond properly here. Placeholder until I can understand your post better
EDIT: see below
On March 25 2013 23:33 ieatkids5 wrote:that article makes no sense. 1. the article says that western demand for quinoa has driven up prices so much that the locals cannot afford it. while the fact that increased demand causes increased prices is true, it ignores the other important point - that the people who are selling the quinoa are getting richer. it also expands the market for quinoa, leading to increased investment, better technologies, more jobs, higher yield, and more productivity. no reasonable state will say "no! stop buying our exports! you're increasing the demand too much!" because it's good for the state (except in very specific cases).
Not sure all those follow-on effects - increased investment, better technologies, and more jobs - follow from a market expansion for quinoa. Ofc yields and productivity will go up, but this might have deleterious knock-on effects for the rest of the economy (c.f. the Dutch disease).
2. the article says that quinoa being grown in europe is going to hurt the bolivians. lolwut? so first, the article says that if people buy bolivia's stuff, it hurts bolivia... now it's saying that if other people make the same stuff as bolivia, thus lowering the price of the good, it ALSO hurts bolivia? the article is so confused about who benefits, and in what way. other people growing quinoa is GOOD for the locals not in the quinoa industry because it drives down prices. it hurts the farmers because they face more competition.
here's what increased demand for quinoa does for bolivians
- increase price (good for quinoa growers, bad for quinoa eaters)
- increase jobs, investment, productivity, productivity (good for everyone)
- increase demand for quinoa substitutes (good for people who make this stuff)
here's what more quinoa being grown in other countries does for bolivians:
- decrease price (good for quinoa eaters, bad for growers)
if you want to help the locals without supporting the farmers (maybe they're the land-owning elite super rich), you can only do so by making more quinoa. if you dont buy quinoa because you dont support the farmers, you will also hurt the locals.
Nope, the article is saying that when their staple food crop (and main staple at that) is exposed to the vagaries in price of the international trade cycle (whether through being grown in huge amounts elsewhere or being consumed in huge amounts elsewhere) it decreases the amount of control local consumers and farmers have over the price of their end product. It basically puts them at the mercy of market forces they may not understand or which may strike them hardest when they need it the most (i.e. if Bolivia experiences hyperinflation and quinoa is a major export commodity, farmers will have an incentive to starve their neighbors to death to earn hard currency on the world market - at the same time at which most people are going to be losing their jobs.)
edit - the article also makes it sound like bolivia's president is doing a good thing for its people by providing loans to the quinoa growers. yes, this will help lower the cost of quinoa a little, but at the "loss" of massive profits for the already-rich. a better way to alleviate the issue would be to lower market entrance barriers to the industry. or, since the industry is probably saturated (no more arable land), stimulate other industries that bolivia has a competitive advantage in. this helps out everyone, especially the poorer peoples, raises standards of living so that they can actually buy the quinoa, and gives the bolivians something to export that other countries want - other countries which may be growing quinoa.
But the thing is, when you have a cash crop that increases the value of your currency, lowering market barriers paradoxically kills local industries. This is why you don't see very much industry in Saudi Arabia, for example, and why Congo's currency has substantial value (and prices their exports beyond the African market) even though most of that country is fucked beyond repair.
|
On March 25 2013 23:49 Shady Sands wrote:
To Kier - sorry for hijacking your blog
No problem. :D I'm actually glad this debate is happening.
It's good to understand where your food comes from and all of the logistics surrounding it.
|
United States10187 Posts
YUMMYYY :3
o god dis hijacked thread TT.TT why cant we enjoy out food 
|
On March 26 2013 00:02 MCDayC wrote:
I always learnt that it was pronounced keen-wha
now i dont know who to trust.
pronounce it correctly and sound like a pompous know-it-all. or pronounce it incorrectly and sound like an uneducated fool. i always have this dilemma when im speaking in class or just in general to people i dont know.
|
That's like if there was an indigenous culture that depended on eating mostly seaweed and then they discovered they could sell it for high prices on the international market. It's unfortunate, but it's the rules of international trade. If you have goods of high value then you aren't going to sell them locally for almost nothing.
In case of Bolivia, if quinoa is too lucrative for international trade, then it might just be the case that they are going to need to eat cheaper agricultural products like e.g. rice. And it is going to raise their standard of living, because they are making money off of this. And the government is fully capable of subsidizing internal quinoa sale or to make sure there are alternative foods available somehow (just maybe not quinoa).
And I think calling it a health fad is offensive. I eat a fair amount of it myself, not because I read some article about 'teh neww superfoodz' but because it's a healthy alternative to grains.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 26 2013 00:41 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 00:03 ieatkids5 wrote:On March 25 2013 23:49 Shady Sands wrote:On March 25 2013 23:33 ieatkids5 wrote:that article makes no sense. 1. the article says that western demand for quinoa has driven up prices so much that the locals cannot afford it. while the fact that increased demand causes increased prices is true, it ignores the other important point - that the people who are selling the quinoa are getting richer. it also expands the market for quinoa, leading to increased investment, better technologies, more jobs, higher yield, and more productivity. no reasonable state will say "no! stop buying our exports! you're increasing the demand too much!" because it's good for the state (except in very specific cases). 2. the article says that quinoa being grown in europe is going to hurt the bolivians. lolwut? so first, the article says that if people buy bolivia's stuff, it hurts bolivia... now it's saying that if other people make the same stuff as bolivia, thus lowering the price of the good, it ALSO hurts bolivia? the article is so confused about who benefits, and in what way. other people growing quinoa is GOOD for the locals not in the quinoa industry because it drives down prices. it hurts the farmers because they face more competition. here's what increased demand for quinoa does for bolivians - increase price (good for quinoa growers, bad for quinoa eaters) - increase jobs, investment, productivity, productivity (good for everyone) - increase demand for quinoa substitutes (good for people who make this stuff) here's what more quinoa being grown in other countries does for bolivians: - decrease price (good for quinoa eaters, bad for growers) if you want to help the locals without supporting the farmers (maybe they're the land-owning elite super rich), you can only do so by making more quinoa. if you dont buy quinoa because you dont support the farmers, you will also hurt the locals. edit - the article also makes it sound like bolivia's president is doing a good thing for its people by providing loans to the quinoa growers. yes, this will help lower the cost of quinoa a little, but at the "loss" of massive profits for the already-rich. a better way to alleviate the issue would be to lower market entrance barriers to the industry. or, since the industry is probably saturated (no more arable land), stimulate other industries that bolivia has a competitive advantage in. this helps out everyone, especially the poorer peoples, raises standards of living so that they can actually buy the quinoa, and gives the bolivians something to export that other countries want - other countries which may be growing quinoa. Right, but not everyone in Bolivia is growing quinoa. A lot of Bolivians can't afford their basic food crop now because it's going into the mouths of folks elsewhere. So what should they do? i wasn't implying any sort of moral judgment on the increased demand for quinoa. i just wanted to point out the important aspects of the issue that the article ignored. i also wanted to explain the lack of logic in the arguments presented by the article - it first argues that increased demand for quinoa is bad for bolivia, and then it says that increaed supply of quinoa elsewhere is bad for bolivia. all im saying is, it's not that simple - there are winners and losers for each, and the winners and losers differ in the short and long term as well. but to answer your question, as i mentioned in the edit in my previous post - i think something better would be to stimulate the other industries of bolivia (not quinoa, and theres probably no arable land left anyways, and i dont think land reform/redistribution is a good idea). Well - they could just increase quinoa production, but do we really want to decrease the economic diversity in that country? Take this effect to its extreme, and it will resemble what Hershey's did to the Ivory Coast - they turned the entire country into one giant cocoa plantation and that raised GDP, but they also made that GDP massively volatile depending on cocoa prices - which left the country destitute a decade later, with soils ruined by overcultivation and monocropping. Industry couldn't develop in the Ivory Coast because workers had to be paid thirty percent what they were paid in neighboring countries since all food was imported and hence more expensive.
Providing Bolivia with incentives to overspecialize in producing a cash crop driven by a health fad, of all things, is going to harm its industrial development in a similar fashion.
Developmental economics is never as simple as a pure neoclassical model would suggest.
/end rant
To Kier - sorry for hijacking your blog maybe you misunderstood my post? i was talking about stimulating other industries (not quinoa), aka diversifying. neoclassical development would suggest that we allow the market to operate at pareto efficiency without government intervention. Blech - too crushed by work to respond properly here. Placeholder until I can understand your post better
Just make it with rice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
