HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >

Discussion

Big Daddy's House Premieres Sunday

Aaron McCargo's show, "Big Daddy's House" airs Sunday at 1:30 p.m. ET. Will you watch/Tivo?

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
    1. re: rockandroller1

      if I remember i will watch, that title has GOT to go tho.

      1. re: sugarsnapp

        I agree. And if the Q&A on Harry's blog is any indication, this is not a place to go for imaginative meals.

      2. re: rockandroller1

        Me too, I would rather watch "Big Mommas House" parts one and two...

        1. I was among a number of sites that attended the Q&A session with Aaron yesterday. If that holds any interest to anyone you can read about it at my site.

          HarryK
          http://www.tvchefsblog.com

          29 Replies
          1. re: HarryK

            Harry, you were being extremely generous in calling all three "talented finalists." ;-)

            And he's all into "big portions"????? Has he not heard about the obesity epidemic in the U.S.? His "perfect meal" is a 16-18 oz. steak, asparagus, potato, salad, and soup.

            Holy smokes.

            1. re: LindaWhit

              LOL! About the generosity, thanks Lisa!

              I know. Wow wow wow. I used to love a 12 oz steak when I was a teen or my early twenties, still growing and very active. Nowadays if I can finish an 8 oz one I consider myself as having overdone it. hehe

              I bet the Deen boys would love that meal though! :)

              1. re: HarryK

                Also, Harry, there's no need to be "honored" to join the bloggers' chat. They invited you to get publicity. You're doing them a favor. Keep up the good work!

                1. re: brendastarlet

                  You never know, Brenda, when I'm being candid, sarcastic or just polite. I'll say the "honored" was just my being polite. At least that's what I'll say. :)

              2. re: LindaWhit

                Why should the "obesity epidemic" change how he wants to cook?

                1. re: jgg13

                  People watching this show will be more likely to eat more than they should - because he's serving "big portions", which is what he's into. It just perpetuates the fact that quantity of food is more important than quality of food.

                  16-18 oz. of steak? That's enough for 4 people!

                  1. re: LindaWhit

                    People are smart enough to make their own decisions. They eat what they want to eat. If they're being "fooled" by a cooking show, that is *their* problem, not the problem of the host.

                    And it isn't like any of these recipes couldn't be halved/etc.

                    1. re: jgg13

                      I think the national statistics willprove you wrong. I think all creatures have a famine response built into their brains so that they will eat as much as what is put in front of them. They have done tests on animals where they leave out a ton of food and they will generally eat until they can't eat anymore. One thing that separates people from other animals is free will, but people, and especially Americans, have a hard time exercising the free will. Our obesity epidemic bears this out.

                      Restaurants have been guilty of overfeeding people starting after WWII, because that is when food became cheap and the restaurants figured out that one criteria people judge their dining experience is via best value for the money and serving larger portions for a little more money can do wonders for their bottom line. This idea then migrated to the family table.

                      I franly don't care if this guy decides to serve heaping servings of whatever he is making because I won't be watching but to say that it isn't his responsibility as a food presenter and demonstrates portion control on a mass communications level is a bit naive.

                      1. re: Phaedrus

                        Oh I know of what you speak, but at the end of the day - unless trickery is involved, the responsibility lies in the hands of the eater. I dislike the hand-holding culture that we're turning into and IMO restaurants, food tv shows, etc should serve/cook/demonstrate/etc whatever the heck they want.

                        If people don't like it, simply don't eat/watch/etc.

                        Suppose I *want* to watch a show where a guy from Camden is cooking up "big portions", why should I have to suffer simply because someone else can't possibly help themselves from eating a giant steak just because they saw it on TV?

                        1. re: jgg13

                          I think they should be reasonable in their presentation. Obviously I don't want the food Gestapo all over the air waves, but it sound like this guy and FN, in order to garner viewership are trying to go over the top.

                          An example is Emeril, in his Live show, he would get people moaning with pleasure by doing huge servings of food, I don't think showing the smaller portion detracts from the presentation nor does it take away the excitement of seeing the dish. The emphasis should be on the taste of the dish rather than how much food is being presented.

                          And why WOULD you consider it to be be suffering from seeing a reasonably portioned dish? I am not saying to plate the food like you are in the middle of the nouvelle cuisine restaurant, I am just saying show a single portion or if you really want to show abundance, show the dish family style.

                          1. re: Phaedrus

                            Heh, when you mentioned Emeril and the audience moaning, I was sure you were going to be talking about his heavy hand with the garlic ;)

                            For the most part, what I saw from Emeril was the "and this is just my portion!" kind of treatment, and pouring extra booze into things when the audience would cheer.

                            Not saying that I would be suffering, just pointing out that if this *is* what I want to see, obviously I'd want to support a show like that. If it *is not* what I want to see, I wouldn't watch the show. Since shows exist based on advertisement, if this was truly not what people wanted to see, they wouldn't watch and the advertisers would leave (and vice versa). So if this (and shows like it) succeed, they do so because *that is what people want*.

                            I don't see any problem with any organization giving people what they want and making a profit on it.

                          2. re: jgg13

                            There is a very good argument against shows that serve up huge portions: They make people think that 14 ounce steaks are a normal serving. That is NOT a normal serving, and it's a huge disservice to readers to suggest it is.

                            1. re: pikawicca

                              Not to get into this again but I still think that argument is bollocks.

                              Who gets to define what "normal" is? You? "Normal" is what most people eat, ergo if most people eat large portions, that is a *normal* portion. If people decide en masse to eat more, then the size of a "normal portion" increases.

                              Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is wrong.

                              1. re: jgg13

                                Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is wrong.
                                ~~~~~~~~~

                                jgg13...that's a motto that more Chowhounds should take into consideration.

                                1. re: jgg13

                                  normal is a dangerous word admittedly and i am not a food snob. however, there actually are standards set for health and scientists/nutritionists/physicians who set them based on what is best for our bodies to function. so 16-18 oz is outside what that should be. it is actually not as far outside "normal" in our current society per your last argument as it is outside healthy.

                                  1. re: AMFM

                                    I'm no stranger to nutritional science, and yes, "healthy" would be a better word than "normal", something that seems lost on a lot of these folks.

                                    A few things though:

                                    1) What is "healthy" is still a hotly debated subject, particularly considering that what "healthy"/"best for our bodies to function" actually *means* differs from person to person (e.g. a diet to maximize one aspect will be different than one to maximize something else .... do you want to be big & strong? live forever? etc). And even within one definition, things are constantly changing.

                                    2) I still think it is assanine to expect a TFN show to feel obligated to present a "healthy" lifestyle. If anything, what would be more understandable would be to expect them to demonstrate what is "normal", which as we've both said isn't what these posters are really upset about.

                                2. re: pikawicca

                                  It's up to people individually to take responsibility to figure out what a proper serving is. I'm not a big fan of TFN for other reasons, but I don't think it's their obligation to focus on portion sizes, etc. unless the theme of the show is healthy eating and they are directly disseminating misinformation. Similarly, it's not the fault of the restaurant that serves huge portions that many of its customers are fat. Just because your sandwich is served with a pound of fries doesn't mean that it's a "normal" portion or that you "have" to finish them.

                                  It's more entertaining and visually appealing to see a plate on TV served up with a huge, juicy slab of meat than it is to look at a 3 oz. Weight Watcher's portion. People need to take a little more ownership of their decisions and be less passive-- going to educational, rather than entertainment sources for their health and dietary information and then exercising some willpower to follow through with eating habits that work for them. It's not the TV show's fault.

                                  1. re: Shawn

                                    I actually don't disagree but there is a big difference between a 3 oz steak and an 18 oz steak.

                                    1. re: AMFM

                                      There is, and it involves a lot of disappointment.

                            2. re: jgg13

                              Very well said.

                              Who are we to tell people to have self control?

                            3. re: LindaWhit

                              Thats just ridiculous. You eat what you want regardless- Ive someone is a food nag or calorie counter, than they wont eat all 4 servings.

                              This show isnt the cause of the issue- eat what you choose. Whats wrong with big portions? The concept of the buffet puts more food in front of you than this.

                              Just have fun with it, jeez.

                              1. re: LindaWhit

                                "16-18 oz. of steak? That's enough for 4 people!"

                                Please, never invite me over for dinner!!!

                                I might leave 6 oz. of steak on my plate---- when I'm done!!!

                                :-)

                                1. re: Mild Bill

                                  I agree bill, I had a 16 oz rare sirloin last night for dinner,and left about 4 oz for my wife to have for a lunch during the week.

                                  1. re: swsidejim

                                    Well, if Big Daddy's giant 16 oz steak meal isn't up your ally.... you can always watch Ellie Kreiger prepare a 3 oz portion of boneless, skinless chicken breast with a 1/2 teaspoon of oil, minimal salt, and a side of steamed broccoli, no butter.

                                    1. re: Mellicita

                                      I'm not sure who you were responding to, Mellicita - swsidejim or me. I don't cook 3 oz. pieces of chicken with no flavor - far from it. But regardless of how I cook - 16 oz. of meat is WAY too much for one meal. So is 12 oz. But if people want to eat that much, so be it. I won't.

                                      1. re: Mellicita

                                        that 16 oz steak would be right up my alley. Cooked rare of course. Skimping on protein is not for me.

                                        I do like Ellie Kreiger though, she is very easy on the eyes.

                            4. re: HarryK

                              While I'm not too excited about Big Daddy, I do sort of like this sentiment:

                              “I call it soul food but I try to keep things seperated [sic]. I don’t want people to think ethnic-wise that it’s black food, because every body has their own type of soul food, be it if your Italian or Irish or Asian or whatever. It’s about food that is really flavorful and something you can be proud of and it comes from your soul. And that’s how I like to cook.”

                              1. re: mhoffman

                                So it's food that:

                                1. Has flavor
                                2. You're happy with
                                3. Reflects your personality

                                Not the most original criteria; in fact, I'd be hard pressed to find ANY chef who would not say these are elements of their cooking.

                            5. Nope, not interested at all. I would have watched the other two at least a couple of times out of curiosity. I don't like his on air personality at all, and like someone else said, that name has really got to go...it keeps making me think of a bordello!

                              1. It depends on whether Maggie The Cat will visit or not. And what about Brick and Big Mama? Or Mae and Gooper?

                                5 Replies
                                1. re: Phaedrus

                                  Maggie the Cat is looking quite tired nowadays - it *has* been what - 50+ years? Besides, she's wheelchair bound and probably not into "big portions" anymore. ;-)

                                    1. re: Phaedrus

                                      LOL! Well, Brick's not doing too well either, according to news reports. So consider us even.

                                      1. re: LindaWhit

                                        You're all hilarious. If FN were in on the joke, they'd have a poster from the movie over Aaron's shoulder...

                                        1. re: brendastarlet

                                          They're not that clever. Which is the reason why there are 4 RR shows, and 5 about how candy is made, etc. :-)

                                2. Purely out of curiousity, Ill give the guy a chance- wanted him to win but dont think he deserved it.

                                  Food should be interesting but I find it hard to understand what he is saying. Not trying to be mean, but we may need subtitles.

                                  To be fair, I thought I would hate Guy Fieri but I find his shows real entertaining for the most part.

                                  1 Reply
                                  1. re: yankeefan

                                    I totally agree. The three of them were okay (food-wise and camera-wise) but there was nothing compelling about them that would make me watch them weekly.

                                    I hate Guy's cooking and DDD shows (too greasy) but at least he has a quick, funny wit.