Sweet and Savoury foods

August 18, 2006 6:25 PM

I live in the UK, the stereotypical lunchtime/evening meal is savoury thing(s) then sweet thing. From my limited travelling, and eating, I've seen the same. It's always savoury(s) first, with the sweet being a kinda optional extra at the end if you're lucky. #1 Is that order of eating important for our digestion/well being? #2 Are there any cuisines where the sweet part is normally the major element of the meal? #3 And is there any good reason why sweet foods are not the bulk/all of our meals?
posted by selton to food & drink (10 comments total)

This exact question was asked a day ago.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 6:34 PM on August 18, 2006

Well, not the exact question, but pretty damn similar.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 6:34 PM on August 18, 2006

Gosh: i'm embarrased, I never guessed someone would ask something so similar.
posted by selton at 6:36 PM on August 18, 2006

This is relatively new, coming about during the 17th Century. Prior to that, everything trended to be mixed together in a stew/mush/pudding. As nutrition improved at the close of the Middle Ages, and the central metaphor for / understanding of digestion changed from "the stomach cooks food" to "the stomach ferments food", the sweet portion was separated out and made optional. See The Birth of the Modern Diet [pdf].
posted by orthogonality at 6:38 PM on August 18, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]

Don't worry about it selton, the interesting strangeness of the coincidence more than makes up for any redundancy, in my opinion.

And the question is a good one. I recall a study which offered babies various foods after they had eaten their normal fare to a point of satiety; only very sweet things were commonly chosen. I thought that explained it, but reading these answers and those in the other thread have left me in doubt.
posted by jamjam at 6:58 PM on August 18, 2006

Well, if you eat sweet stuff first, you'll be more likely to get your fill of those and not eat as much of the "better for you" vegetables and proteins. I don't know of any cuisine where the main course is usually something sweet. Fruit salad is sometimes served before the savory main course, but that's an exception.

There's a clear health benefit to not eating all sweets all the time. Didn't your momma tell you that? Not only are you more likely to eat less of the more healthful stuff, but you're going to get a massive insulin rush and be well on your way to Type II diabetes if you make a habit of it.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 7:08 PM on August 18, 2006

In India, sweets are eaten along side the meal. While this might seem strange, in the west we drink sweet fizzy drinks with food. As someone born without a sweet tooth in his head, this completely disgusts me. But it is wide spread.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 7:43 PM on August 18, 2006

Many kinds of American breakfasts are sweet: sweet rolls, pancakes or waffles with syrup, waffles with strawberries or cherries and whipped cream, etc.

You want sweet meals? Go to your nearest IHOP.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:56 PM on August 18, 2006

I spent a week with the Royal Navy in Faslane, Scotland, staying in the officers' mess. At mealtimes, the dessert was usually savoury (eg. asparagus).
posted by randomination at 4:24 AM on August 19, 2006

I've heard that it's actually healthier to eat sweets first or alone because they can/should be digested more quickly but if they're eaten after a heavy meal they just sit on top of the other food and ferment for a while (especially late in the evening when not too much energy is used and digestion is slow). On the other hand, combining sweets with something else can decrease the associated blood sugar spike, so who knows.

And then there's the "cheese course", which although I'm a fan of sweets, is definitely one of my favorite meal endings.
posted by lgyre at 12:04 PM on August 19, 2006