I have updated my blog list of the Best Places to Qat near I-95 between DC and Key West for 2025-26. No chains, no losers. There are tips on lucky overnight places and destinations (Charleston, St, Simons, Palm Beaches, Key West) There are far too many places to cover here, but a little taste –
Thanks to vinouspleasure for his contributions and thanks in advance to anyone who has suggestions along the way, especially in Florida above Palm Beach for next year.
Good to see you are only listing the healthy places 
Mental health, anyway.
Hey, I did add some low-fat, vegetarian and vegan spots.
And don’t forget that pork fat is the 8th most nutritious food. Really. Of course, nutritious and healthy are not synonymous, but there’s a lot of overlap.
Fabulous! Reminds me of how, in Spain, locals are always going on about the “healthy” fats in jamon Iberico. At this stage, I could care less if I eat UN-healthy foods once in a while. Or twice in a while.
Pork fat is in fact the 8th most nutritious food. Of course, nutrition is not co-extensive with healthiness, but it’s certainly related.
Could you include some sources for that fact?
Pork fat is a source of calories and fat, of course.
As fats go, most cardiologists and registered dietitians don’t rank pork fat too highly as a nutritious food or healthy food.
See – https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118697
more to the nutrition side, lots of protein, minerals, the B vitamins.
Most experts would agree it is pork meat that is high in protein and nutrients, not pork fat.
Lean pork is usually what would be considered the more nutritious pork option by conventional cardiologists and dietitians.
I am seeing that Number 8 listing cited across the Net.
I initially saw the study reported some years ago via the BBC, which I admit is sketchy, but I took the time to look and found that there was a study (there at the link I sent) and that the publisher, PLOS is reputable.
Contra El Pais, the study says nothing about pork rinds (which are fried) and the study is from Korea rather than Boston. the study was peer-reviewed, one correction was made, and it was published pre-AI. No one cites a refutation of the study. The sources seem to be talking off the top of their heads, just reciting the conventional wisdom on which. their careers are based without actually investigating – what you expect from newspapers these days.
Of course, science is process rather than a set of facts. Scientific studies are inherently imperfect because no one can ever identify and account for all of the variables. Nowhere is the truer than with human food, where the variety of human reactions to a given food is effectively infinite. Thus Sagan’s apothegm (riffing on Einstein), “Science is an argument.” and Newton’ Third Law of Experts (For each and every expert there is an equal and opposite expert).
I assume the study does have flaws, like all other studies, and that none of its claims are true for all people.
I haven’t read through all of these but if anyone is interested:
