It wasn’t until recently that we understood how people who really didn’t care much about football would so look forward to Superbowl Sunday: They love a party occasion, first off, and they especially love one that can be centered around eating (and drinking) — and maybe eating things they love but can’t have as often as they crave them (wings, hot dogs with everything, Fritos, etc.).

Just as one New York Times blogger says in her recent post, some people are more Tom Brady (“Nothing Says Cool Like Ricotta Gnocchi for a Crowd”) than Eli Manning (“play it safe and order pizza”). While we can’t claim to know much about those two guys, we now know foodies love an excuse to cook up an assortment of hearty winter snacks that, together, can pass for a meal.

If you really want to know, Hot Plates isn’t much for the pigskin thing. We go where the treats are, though, and on Sunday we will be bringing wine (sparkling, most likely) and something we sampled at Whole Foods Market this morning which was also written up in today’s Washington Post: these spicy, lovely cocktail sausages.

We’ll begin by giving you the items on Superbowl food, starting with this yucky, icky, truly scientific “second look at that communal bowl of dip” in the N.Y. Times. It is about how much bacteria is transferred during infamous “double-dips” at parties. Appetizing stuff. The thicker the dip, the less bacteria transferred, because more stuff sticks to the chip (go guacamole over salsa, then, if you think you have dip villains in your midst).

The Washington Post offers two super-delicious-sounding variations on guacamole (we are bored of our own!). The paper has two staffers each offer their version, and they sort of face off and determine whose recipe is better and why.

The L.A. Times puts the football/food question this way: Are you 50-50 or 75-25 (in terms of your ratio of dining pleasure to sports excitement)? It seems the Los Angeles area has a proliferation of “gastropubs, sushi sports bars and even beer-friendly wine bars” where one could perch and enjoy something other than Miller Lite and jalapeno poppers. This is a nice piece for Angelenos who don’t love football but who must “watch” the game — and they need to know which places will cater to their not-so-sporty palates.

That’s all for now on sports-related eating. To round out what else was notable in the Wednesday food pages, here are a handful of other items — starting off with a news-feature update on last week’s “fishy business.” There’s a nice, well-intentioned, very helpful piece in the New York Times reminding readers not to avoid fish entirely just because of the mercury-in-bluefin-tuna issue. Some people will find this condescending (moi?) and others will be happy there are sea creatures they can still enjoy without losing their minds (figuratively and, some of the research suggests, literally).

Times writer Nick Fox reassures us with lists of fish that are safe to eat, and he also names a couple of other undersea mercury bombs that eluded the limelight with the sushi news from last week. It’s an excellent follow-up, and more papers should probably have done a more comprehensive piece like this by now.

You shouldn’t miss “Gluttonous Rite Survives Without Silverware,” also from the Times, but don’t read this article about “beefsteaks” if you have a weak stomach — anything about contest-eating can hit some people the wrong way. It’s a fitting article, given the mood lurking in the air as the Bowl approaches, because it is about meat and beer. Lots and lots of those two things. Meat, beer, men, and yelling. Pounding of fists, probably.

Here is the gist: “Beefsteaks” are “boisterous mass feeds featuring unlimited servings of steak, lamb chops, bacon-wrapped lamb kidneys, crabmeat, shrimp and beer, all consumed without such niceties as silverware, napkins or women.” Beefsteaks are, apparently, a New Jersey thing, and we are not as surprised as the writer that this tradition is still being upheld. There is a sidebar recipe for “roasted beefsteak sirloin with blood and butter sauce.” Vegetarian’s nightmare, indeed.

Jumping abruptly from men and meat, we go to the (apparently political) topic of children and vegetables. We can’t resist plunking this Boston Globe piece in here for you to read because, well, it makes good sense to us and it’s a viewpoint we haven’t read before. You have surely seen the stories about the children’s cookbook authors who have made a fortune teaching parents to hide “good foods” inside foods kids love, or disguising vegetables as other things in order to get them into the mouths of the picky. Well, this writer picks up on a very interesting thread: People who toss out that whole concept.

“Deception is a word that doesn’t belong at the dinner table, says one dietician and author in the Boston area. “If you are hiding good food from kids, what are you really teaching them about good habits?” To us, if the kid doesn’t see it’s a carrot, but eats some carrot in his tomato sauce, he hasn’t gotten over his carrot issue — and won’t, as long as he doesn’t eat it in its identifiable form. This piece has good suggestions in it, so if you have picky eaters it is worth a look.

We’ll hopefully see you tomorrow with some wine (and likely beer) articles, but Hot Plates will sign off for now with another great viewpoint from Times writer Alex Witchel. It’s kind of an indignant rant — always a treat — on restaurants’ tendency to ask reservation-making patrons whether their visit will be a “special occasion.”

Witchel argues that this is a silly and annoying question: “These days, dinner for four at a good restaurant, in any major city, is not an endeavor to be taken lightly. Four cocktails, four appetizers, four entrees, one or two bottles of wine — depending on the crowd — and, potentially, four desserts and four coffees. You’re looking at spending anywhere from $500 to $700. That seems pretty special to me.” To quote a hilarious Texan we know and love, “Preach it, sister!”