Exotic/Disgusting Foods and Beverages Forum--Two More Non-Dairy "Milks"

      I've sampled non-dairy "milks" before, and written about them on two previous occasions.  (See my posts on June 16th, 2018 and April 25th, 2020 for more information.)  But, it's been a while, and I saw a couple of new ones.  So I gave them a go as well.  This time around I tried the chocolate kind from Not Milk, and the original kind of Ripple.

     The story of Ripple Foods begins in 2014.  Adam Lowry, who'd already had business success by co-founding Method Products, met up with a biochemical engineer named Dr. Neil Renninger.  They decided to create a company dedicated to making non-dairy "milks."  (Am I going to add quotation marks to "milk" for the rest of this post?  Yup.)  They also follow the common rules of what I call "hippie" type companies--they're big on environmental stability, against the use of common allergens, eschew GMOs, and are pro-vegan.  They're also proudly a "B" company, which means that they meet standards of verified social and environmental performance, public transparency, legal accountability, and the balance of profits and purpose.  Aside from the kind I tried, Ripple also makes chocolate and vanilla flavors, and shelf stable versions of all of these, as well as various kids and unsweetened versions.  The base for all of these "milks" is the yellow split pea.  Which, as the website proudly notes, requires much less water than almonds, and puts out a much lower CO2 output than real dairy.  Oddly though, Ripple does use regular ol' cane sugar in their sweetened drinks.  Which doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of their healthy ethos, but whatever.  Finally, the headquarters of the company is in California, but my carton says it's a product of Canada, so evidently some of their facilities are in the Great White North.

     Not Milk is made The Not Company, Inc., based out of San Francisco, California.  Alternate products of the company include Not Mayo, Not Sausage, Not Sausage (bratwurst), Not Hot Dogs, Not Mac & Cheese, Not Cheeses, Not Burgers, and Not Chicken Patties.  As I went deeper into the company itself, I got some surprises.  First, the company is in turn owned by the massive Kraft/Heinz corporation, which owns dozens of brands, including Philadelphia cream cheese, A.1. steak sauce, Capri Sun drinks Clausen pickles, Cool Whip, Jell-O, etc., etc.  Since non-dairy "milk" makers tend to be independent, and against the big businesses that may not be environmentally conscious, labor-friendly, health-conscious, and such, it seemed like an odd choice that they would agree to be part of such a megacorporation.  Then I read an article which made things weirder, and perhaps sinister?  Co-founders Matias Muchnik and Karim Pichara are apparently quite open about their main goal.  Which isn't to make plant-based products.  It's alleged that they use their AI program "Guiseppe," as a Trojan horse to disrupt research and development centers in the industries that use animal and plant ingredients.  Or, it's a data company disguised as a food company.  For legal reasons, I'll re-state that this was one article, and I'm not 100% sure of its legitimacy.  But it was definitely much stranger, and possibly unsettling to read about this while researching a business that makes pseudo dairy products.  If these accusations are true, if you're into consuming meat and dairy, be warned--the Not Company is evidently coming for the products that you love.  (I'm jokingly exaggerating.  I think.  I hope.)

Ripple plant based milk, original flavor:  Had an off-white color.  No real odor.  Plain, it tastes kind of "milky," but is flat, somehow.  So alright, but not great.  It was also okay on cereal.  Maybe a good substitute for real milk?  Kind of "meh" overall, I suppose.  Not especially good, but not especially bad, either.

Not Milk, chocolate flavor:  Had a light brown color, and not much of an odor.  I had some plain, and some on cereal.  (Full disclosure--I haven't much chocolate milk in my life.  I was allergic to chocolate before puberty, so I didn't have it then.  And after, I just didn't really try it much.  I don't remember why.)  Both ways were pretty good.  The thickness, texture, and taste were like real milk.  And the chocolate taste was definitely evident, and to a good amount.  So overall I liked this one, and it was noticeably better than the Ripple.  I would recommend this to vegans, or to those milk drinkers that like to switch things up every once in a while, for whatever reason.

     One final tidbit, which goes back to the Ripple Foods company.  Mainly, their name.  I'm really showing my age here, but when I hear about a drink called "Ripple," I think about the cheap, fortified wine made for, and consumed mostly by, poor alcoholics, and indigent college students.  Ripple was akin to potent potables like Wild Irish Rose, Thunderbird, Night Train, Cisco, Mad Dog 20/20, and Boone's Farm.  Ripple was at its peak of popularity (or notoriety, for many) in the 1970's and was discontinued in 1984.  This ending date puzzled me, since I clearly didn't drink it when I was a college student, in the late 80's and early 90's.  Then I read about how the character Fred Sanford on the 1970's Redd Foxx television sitcom "Sanford and Son" was a vocal fan, mentioning it frequently.  So this must be why I recall it, mostly, as I did used to watch that program as a kid.  Anyway, I guess the makers of Ripple the "milk" never heard of the wino drink, or else figured that enough time had passed.  But still, the name makes me laugh a little.

Exotic/Disgusting Foods and Beverages Forum--Canadian Gourmet Baked Beans and a Writing Announcement

      Looking back, I haven't done a post about a Canadian food or drink in a while.  (Since August 3, 2024, to be precise.)  So let's return to our Neighbors to the North.  (For Americans like me, anyway.)  I tried three kinds of the gourmet baked beans from the Clark brand--their apple bacon mesquite, their peach honey habanero, and their Buffalo style ones.

     I'll quote from the label on my cans for some detail about the company's origins.  "In 1877 a penniless William Clark muscled his way into the prepared foods industry with nothing but a determined belief that he could make better-tasting, higher-quality food products."  Giver the state of canned food safety in the U.S. at the time (and presumably many other countries as well), long before the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act had been passed, hopefully Clark was concerned about food safety as well.  Reportedly at the time William had only three employees, and no money in the bank when he rented an old store front in downtown Montreal.  (No accounts mentioned where he got the money for the rent, or to pay his employees.  Maybe his workers were family, willing to toil for very little or nothing, and maybe someone in his family loaned him some cash.)  Anyway, the business prospered, as Clark and his four sones built the business into a food empire.  It's billed as being Canada's largest diversified food company.  Aside from baked beans, Clark also makes several other canned food products--meat spreads, condensed soups, gravies, and chili sauces.  Alternate flavors of the gourmet baked beans include maple chipotle, chili lime, and root beer.  (Yes, root beer.  Seems like an odd flavor for baked beans, but maybe it's good.)  Clark is actually owned by another company called Ouimet-Cordon Bleu Foods, Inc.  Although it seems to mostly go by the title Cordon Bleu.  OCB, as I'll abbreviate it from now on, acquired the rights to Clark's stews in 1990 and their baked beans in 1991.  (I don't see stews on the Clark official website's product list, so apparently they discontinued making them.)  OCB started in 1933, by a J.-Rene Ouimet.  (Yes, that's how I saw it rendered on their official website.)   Ouimet later teamed up with the Cordon Bleu company.  Aside from Clark, OCB also owns the Paris Pate, Esta, and Cordon Bleu brands.

Clark gourmet baked beans, apple bacon mesquite flavor:  These were beans in a reddish-brown sauce.  The smell was like regular baked beans.  The taste was both sweet and smoky.  Pretty good, overall.  They were zestier than most baked beans I've had, which usually have the blander brown sauce.  I'm only a moderate fan of baked beans, but these were a good example of the style.

Clark gourmet baked beans, peach honey habanero flavor:  Like the previous ones, these had a reddish-brown color, and a normal baked bean-y odor.  I could taste the sweet, and peachy flavors, so both the honey and peach were represented.  But I didn't really pick up on a spicy habanero flavor.  Which I would have liked, I think, as the sweetness was a tad cloying.  I enjoyed the apple bacon mesquite ones better.  But these were still okay.

Clark gourmet baked beans, Buffalo style:  These had an orange color, and a distinct Buffalo sauce odor.  (For those who don't know, this refers to the flavor of chicken wings, which started in Buffalo, New York.)  The taste was decently potent, markedly spicy like good Buffalo wings.  Not overpowering, but enough to make things interesting.  Since I like Buffalo wings in general, this was a good flavor pairing.  These were really tasty, my favorite of the trio by far.  I've already gone back and bought more cans of these.

     So, to sum up, I came away pretty impressed by Clark's gourmet baked beans.  Even the "worst" kind was still solid.  I'll have to try the other flavors, too, especially the strange root beer flavored ones.

     Moving on, I recently signed a contract for my short story "Wet Nightmare," to be part of a as yet unnamed horror anthology from RDG Books Press.  It should be out in the autumn of this year.  Obviously, as I receive more details I'll post them.  I'm especially pleased that "Wet Nightmare" was finally chosen.  It's one of my oldest stories, as I wrote it back in 1999.  And RDG was the 48th time I've submitted it.  So maybe something like this can help inspire my fellow writers--never give up on a story.  Keep on submitting it, and eventually, even if it takes decades, it may see the light of day, so to speak, and get published.

The Worst Overall Quarterbacks and Worst Individual Quarterback Performances For Winning Super Bowl Teams

      With the Super Bowl being tomorrow (Go Eagles!), I thought I'd do another post about it.  Specifically, trying to figure out who was the worst quarterback to win a Super Bowl, and also what was the worst individual performance for a winning quarterback. (For starters, clearly--I'm not counting backup quarterbacks for worst individual performance, since most play like a series at most.  With one exception which I'll discuss in a bit.) So, I looked at the quarterbacks and the results for all 58 Super Bowls, and tried to crunch the numbers.  Obviously, the answers to these questions are admittedly a little subjective, depending on what statistics you value the most.  I decided to use quarterback rating and Approximate Value (AV) for these determinations, which I got from the pro-football-reference.com website.   (If you're really curious, in their glossary they have detailed explanations on how they calculate both of these stats.) Anyway, let's get to it.  I'll explore each as a bottom 10 list, going least bad to most bad.  Plus, as usual, I'm not going to type out the Roman numerals for each Super Bowl, I'll convert them to our regular numbers.

Worst Quarterback Rating for a Super Bowl Winning Quarterback:

10)   79.9  Brad Johnson, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Super Bowl 37.  Johnson completed 18 of 34 passes (52.9%) for 215 yards, 2 touchdowns, and 1 interception.

9)     78.1  Patrick Mahomes, Kansas City Chiefs, Super Bowl 54.  Mahomes completed 26 of 42 passes (61.9%) for 286 yards, 2 touchdowns, and 2 interceptions.

8)     77.2  Troy Aikman, Dallas Cowboys, Super Bowl 28.  Aikman completed 19 of 27 passes (70.4%) for 207 yards, 0 touchdowns, and 1 interception.

7)     75.1  Joe Theismann, Washington Redskins, Super Bowl 17.  Theismann completed 15 of 23 passes (65.2%) for 143 yards, 2 touchdowns, and 2 interceptions.

6)     71.4  Tom Brady, New England Patriots, Super Bowl 53.  Brady completed 21 of 35 passes (60%) for 262 yards, 0 touchdowns, and 1 interception.

5)     68.1  John Unitas, Baltimore Colts, Super Bowl 5. Unitas completed 3 of 9 passes (33.3%) for 88 yards, 1 touchdown, and 2 interceptions.  He also lost a fumble.  (a)

4)     56.6  Peyton Manning, Denver Broncos, Super Bowl 50.  Manning completed 13 of 23 passes (56.5%) for 141 yards, 0 touchdowns, and 1 interception.  He also fumbled twice, losing 1.

3)     54.0  Earl Morrall, Baltimore Colts, Super Bowl 5.  Morrall completed 7 of 15 passes (46.7%) for 147 yards, 0 touchdowns, and 1 interception.  (a)

2)     51.9  John Elway, Denver Broncos, Super Bowl 32.  Elway completed 12 of 22 passes (54.5%) for 123 yards, 0 touchdowns, and 1 interception.  He did rush for a touchdown, though.

1)     22.6  Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers, Super Bowl 40. Ben completed 9 of 21 passes (42.9%) for 123 yards, 0 touchdowns, and 2 interceptions.  He did rush for a touchdown, on the plus side. (b)

   (a)  I'm including both Unitas and Morrall for Super Bowl 5, since Unitas started and played roughly half the game before being injured.  Morrall came in to replace him down 13-6 and the Colts eventually won 16-13.  Although, as the stats indicate, neither quarterback played well at all, and the Colts arguably won despite their quarterbacks.

  (b)  To give some further indication of how bad Roethlisberger played, if he'd simply spiked the ball into the ground on every passing attempt his rating would have increased to 39.6!  

Worst Lifetime Quarterbacks to Win a Super Bowl, as Determined by AV:

11)   108  Jim Plunkett.  Jim played in 15 seasons, from 1971-77 and 1979-86, for the New England Patriots, San Francisco 49ers, and Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders.  He started 144 of 157 games, with a won-loss record of 72-72.  He completed 52.5% of his passes for 25,882 yards, 164 touchdowns, and 198 interceptions.  His lifetime rating was 67.5, and he was never named to the Pro Bowl or All-Pro teams.  Rushing-wise he accumulated 1337 yards, on a 4.1 average, for 14 touchdowns. (a)

10)    107  Joe Theismann.  Joe played 12 seasons, from 1974-85, all with the then Washington Redskins.  He started 124 of 167 games, with a 77-47 won-loss record.  He completed 56.7% of his passes for 25,206 yards, 160 touchdowns, and 138 interceptions.  His lifetime rating was 77.4, and he was named to 2 Pro Bowls and 1 All-Pro team.  He also rushed for 1885 yards (5.1 average) and 17 touchdowns.

9)     93  Brad Johnson.  Johnson played 15 years, from 1994-2008, with the Minnesota Vikings, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and others.  He started 125 of 177 total games, with a 72-53 won-loss record.  He completed 61.7% of his passes for 29,054 yards, 166 touchdowns, 122 interceptions, and a rating of 82.5.  He was a Pro Bowler 2 times.  He also rushed for 657 yards (2.4 average) and 8 touchdowns. (b)

8)    86+  Earl Morrall.  (AV is only calculated for 1960 and beyond, and Morrall played a few seasons before this.  So he would have had more AV, but I don't know how much.  Presumably not enough to make it off this list, but arguably better than Johnson's at least.)  Anyway, Morrall played 21 seasons, from 1956-76, with the Detroit Lions, Baltimore Colts, Miami Dolphins, and others.  He started 102 of 255 games, with a won-loss record of 63-36.  He completed 51.3% of his passes for 20,809 yards, 161 touchdowns, 148 interceptions, and a rating of 74.1.  He was named to 2 Pro Bowls and 2 All-Pro teams.  He rushed for 878 yards (3.7 average) and 8 touchdowns.  (c)

7)    75  Jalen Hurts.  Hurts is still active, but so far has played 5 seasons, from 2020-2024, all with the Philadelphia Eagles.  He's started 66 of 77 total games, with a 46-20 won-loss record.  He has completed 64.4% of his passes for 14,667 yards, 85 touchdowns, 39 interceptions, and a rating of 93.5.  He's been named to 2 Pro Bowls.  He's also rushed for 3,13 yards (4.6 average), and 55 touchdowns.

6)    71  Jim McMahon.  Jim played in 15 seasons, from 1982-96, with the Chicago Bears, Philadelphia Eagles, Green Bay Packers, and others.  He started 97 of 119 games, with a won-loss record of 67-30.  He completed 58% of his passes for 18,148 yards, 100 touchdowns, 90 interceptions, and a rating of 78.2.  He was named to 1 Pro Bowl.  He rushed for 1631 yards (4.8 average) and 16 touchdowns.

5)    65  Jeff Hostetler.  Jeff played in 12 seasons, from 1985-86, and 1988-97, with the New York Giants, Raiders, and Washington Redskins.  He started 83 of 152 games, with a won-loss record of 51-32.  He completed 58% of his passes for 16,430 yards, 94 touchdowns, 71 interceptions, and an 80.5 rating.  He was named to 1 Pro Bowl.  He rushed for 1391 yards (4.4 average) and 17 touchdowns.

4)    63  Doug Williams.  Williams played in 9 seasons, from 1978-82, and 1986-89.  (He sat out the 1983 season due to a contract dispute, and then played in the USFL from 1984-85.)  Doug played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Washington Redskins.  He started 81 of 88 games, with a won-loss record of 38-42-1.  He completed 49.5% of his passes for 16,998 yards, 100 touchdowns, 93 interceptions, and a rating of 69.4.  He was not named to any Pro Bowls or All-Pro teams.  He rushed for 884 yards (4.0 average) and 15 touchdowns.

3)    60  Mark Rypien.  Rypien played in 11 seasons, from 1988-97, and 2001, with the Washington Redskins, Cleveland Browns, Philadelphia Eagles, and others.  He started 78 of 104 games, and had a won-loss record of 47-31.  He completed 56.1% of his passes for 18,473 yards, 115 touchdowns, 88 interceptions, and a rating of 78.9.  He was named to 2 Pro Bowls.  He also rushed for 166 yards (1.3 average) and 8 touchdowns.

2)    60  Trent Dilfer.  (I ranked Dilfer as worse than Rypien despite their identical AVs, since Rypien had a better rating, touchdown/interception ratio, and more Pro Bowls.)  Dilfer played 13 seasons, with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Baltimore Ravens, Seattle Seahawks, and others.  He started 113 of 130 games, with a won-loss record of 58-55.  He completed 55.5% of his passes for 20,518 yards, 113 touchdowns, 129 interceptions, and a 70.2 rating.  He was named to 1 Pro Bowl.  He rushed for 853 yards (3.4 average), and 5 touchdowns.

1)    37  Nick Foles.  Foles played in 11 seasons, from 2012-22, with the Philadelphia Eagles, Kansas City Chiefs, Chicago Bears, and others.  He started 58 of 71 games, with a won-loss record of 29-29.  He completed 62.4% of his passes for 14,227 yards, 82 touchdowns, 47 interceptions, and a rating of 86.2.  He also rushed for 407 yards (2.7 average) and 6 touchdowns.

(a)  Plunkett, of course, won 2 Super Bowls, 15 and 18, both with the Raiders.  I think pretty much everyone would agree that he's the worst to win 2.

(b)  Johnson also was the first(?) to throw a touchdown pass to himself.  (He threw a pass that was batted back by a defender to him, and he caught it and ran it in for a touchdown.)  I know a couple of others, including Marcus Mariota and Josh Allen have done it since.

(c)  Morrall also was part of the winning Super Bowl Miami Dolphin teams for Super Bowls 7 and 8, but as a backup.  He actually started much of the 1972 regular season and even the first two playoff games, but Bob Griese was able to start Super Bowl 7.

     

     So there you have it.  And yes, As an Eagles fan it does gall me a bit to have to acknowledge that by some metrics Nick Foles was the worst quarterback to win a Super Bowl.  And if you're curious, Jalen Hurts's current lifetime AV is 75, meaning he would qualify for the latter list if he wins tomorrow.  But of course, he should play many more years and raise it up, I would hope.  But this is all speculation at this point.  (Update:  Hurts did win, so I put him on the list.  Which explains why this one now has 11 quarterbacks.  I'll try to continue to update this every year, until Hurts hopefully leaves it.)

 

  

 

Exotic/Disgusting Foods and Beverages Forum--A Grain-Free Cereal

      This might be a new one for me.  I first heard of this product from some advertisements on a couple of YouTube channels I like (SciManDan and Scaredy Cats, if anyone's curious).  Then, a while later, I saw some of these products in my grocery store, and they jogged my memory.  When I saw that this Magic Spoon cereal is somehow grain-free, I decided it was just offbeat enough to qualify for my blog.  So I picked up one, their peanut butter flavor kind, to be exact.

     Magic Spoon is a very recent company, having been around only since 2019.  It was co-founded by Greg Sewitz and Gabi Lewis, and is located in New York City, NY.  As they explained on their official company website, Greg and Gabi met in college, and have been friends ever since, even living together, and having started a previous business together.  (They didn't give any more details about this first business, so evidently it wasn't successful.).  The two guys were major fans of breakfast cereals, but not happy with the inevitable energy crash that often occurred later in the day, due to the sugar.  Therefore, the pair sought to develop a cereal that was just as tasty and sweet as the ones they enjoyed growing up, but one that used a sugar substitute as the main sweetener, to avoid the crash.  Also, for other alleged health reasons, the guys wanted to avoid using grains as well.  This main sugar substitute is called allulose, which I'll get into more detail later.  Aside from cereals, Magic Spoon also makes treats (with flavors of marshmallow, double chocolate, and chocolate-y peanut butter), and granola (with flavors of peanut butter, mixed berry, and honey almond).  Alternate flavors of the cereal include cocoa, chocolate chip cookie, birthday cake, frosted, blueberry muffin, and cinnamon toast.  And, not shockingly, Magic Spoon proudly notes that its wares are high in protein, keto friendly, free of gluten, grain, soy, and wheat, and are kosher.  However, since they use milk protein, their products are not free of dairy, and thus are not appropriate for vegans.  They also either use, or are made in facilities that process sesame, tree nuts, soy, wheat, and peanuts.

Magic Spoon cereal, peanut butter flavor:  The individual pieces looked like Cheerios, as they were orange-yellow loops with a diameter of about 1 cm. (about .4 inch).  They had a strong peanut butter odor.  I tried some plain, and then with milk.  The flavor was very peanut butter-y. and the texture was crunchy.  They kind of reminded me of Peanut Butter flavor Captain Crunch, or even Cinnamon Toast Crunch.  Which is a compliment.  I really enjoyed this cereal.  I love peanut butter as a spread, as an additive, and as a flavor in general, so having something with an intense peanut butter taste is a definite plus.  I often complain on this blog about foods and drinks that are bland, and lacking in their advertised flavor, and this is a clear exception.  The only downside was the price--about $8 for a 7 ounce (198 gram) box.  I'd buy this again for the taste, but the price means it will only be occasionally.

     The sugar substitute allulose is naturally occurring, found in such things as molasses, maple syrup, wheat, figs, and raisins (and presumably grapes?  Unless it's created when grapes are dried, I guess).  It has a lot of positive qualities for a sugar substitute.  It tastes very much like sugar (and it's about 70% as sweet), it has fewer calories, does not cause cavities in teeth, and doesn't affect blood sugar levels.  Sounds great, huh?  So why is allulose not approved by the food safety administrations in Canada and Europe?  Because it's relatively new.  And comprehensive studies of its effects haven't been completed.  There's some preliminary data that suggests allulose could increase the chances of strokes or heart attacks, as is the case with some sugar alcohols.  Plus, it may cause gastrointestinal issues such as gas buildup, and bloating.  To be fair, most or all other sugar substitutes have potential adverse health effects, too.  Therefore, the jury is still out. so to speak.  As of now, it would appear that it's probably a bad idea to consume massive quantities of allulose.  (But of course, it's also a bad idea to eat tons of regular old cane sugar, too.)  So, I think it's advisable to enjoy it in moderation, and stay alert about the results of further scientific tests about allulose's pros and cons.