Jump to content


Welcome to the eG Forums!

These forums are a service of the Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, a 501c3 nonprofit organization dedicated to advancement of the culinary arts. Anyone can read the forums, however if you would like to participate in active discussions please join the Society.

Photo

RAW by "Charlie Trotter"

Cookbook

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 SAute

SAute
  • legacy participant
  • 7 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 07:12 AM

Hey...

I was lerking around and saw that Charlie is putting out another book. There's lots of talk down here in San Diego (CA) kitchens about Charlies work. We dont really get to see much of the RAw foods that he and so many other chefs have jumped too. My question is...
What's everyones feeling about foods thats not been fully cooked. I know the Nutritional value of foods that are cooked to (118) degrees hold more health benys. But where do we draw this line. I guess this mainly goes for foods like veggies and some fish and or meats. But when is this conversion going to take place; in our kitchens at work or at home. I know... l have tried to serve more and more dishes that dont reach temps over (118). Mainly pasta salads and vegetarain foods, though they haven't taking a liking to it. SO whats your thoughts about this "trend".
Thanks
-SAute :smile:

#2 eliotmorgan

eliotmorgan
  • legacy participant
  • 68 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 08:06 AM

Just spoke with someone from Ten Speed Press about this book. I've been waiting for it for about 14 months. It's been delayed 3 times, and the initial printing of 20,000 volumes to arrive next Monday is already oversold with a waiting list mounting. An additional printing will be available 21 November. My Green Power Juicer, Dehydrator and Vita-Mix are at the ready. I love new food techniques. I expect this book to be much better than the Juliano book also titled "RAW."

I should mention that this book is collaboration between Trotter and Roxanne Klein. I'm very familiar with Trotter's food, but I've not had the pleasure of eating at Ms. Klein's restaurant yet. It's a natural match, Trotter's vegetable menu is excellent.

You can call 10 Speed directly at 1-800-841-2665 or you can pre-order it on Amazon or Barnes and Noble.

As for drawing the line: "we" don't. Food is much to personal for that.

Edited by eliotmorgan, 09 October 2003 - 08:28 AM.


#3 Lady T

Lady T
  • participating member
  • 1,611 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 08:28 AM

:smile:

Welcome, SAute. If you look around the archives a bit, you'll see that there's been quite a bit of discussion -- some of it pretty heated -- about the whole raw/living foods thing, and especially about the science (or lack thereof) in proponents' claims about the nutritional benefits.

Good to hear that the book is finally being released, however. Now we can judge it on its culinary merits, whatever the questions of science/nutrition may be on one hand and of the vegan/raw diet's ethical/moral origins on the other. Can normal civilians get their hand on the ingredients, or are they so exotic and seasonal that the cost isn't practical? Can we create any of these recipes without access to thousands of dollars worth of equipment? Do they taste good enough that we would want to do so? What does this book bring to cuisine?
Me, I vote for the joyride every time.
-- 2/19/2004

#4 bigwino

bigwino
  • participating member
  • 201 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 08:34 AM

Here is an interesting article by Robert Wolke talking about the science behind the raw food movement. Basically, he sees no scientific basis for any of the claims made by raw foodists.

I've never been able to get very excited about this movement. I like cooking things. They usually taste really good that way.

Has anyone eaten at Klein's restaurant? Is it really delicious or simply novel in it's approach?

#5 FoodMan

FoodMan
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 4,316 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 09:08 AM

My philosophy aboput this whole thing is :
If it tastes good I will eat it, nothing more nothing less.

I do eat raw foods but not because they are "living" but because sometimes I feel like it and sometimes they include a nice piece of raw sashimi or steak tartar.

I see absolutly no need to HAVE to eat anything just because it is supposedly good for me or because it is trendy.


FM

E. Nassar
Houston, TX

My Blog
contact: enassar(AT)gmail(DOT)com


#6 eliotmorgan

eliotmorgan
  • legacy participant
  • 68 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 09:08 AM

Wolke’s article is hilarious! Thanks bigwino. I love to cook too. The Juliano book “RAW” excludes some of my favorite raw food: Meat and Fish. It declares these things dead and employs a language that conjures up images of eating a carcass on the side of the road or a teammate in the Andes. It’s usually best to ignore the sermon and get to the meal, that’s where as Lady T has pointed out, “we can judge it on its culinary merits.”

If you like the sermons by the preachers and true believers of this particular culinary religion I’d suggest the following books. They are fun to read and present some real howlers.

Ethical Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer
Religious Vegetarianism: From Hesiod to the Dalai Lama
Both by Kerry Walters

The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist- Vegetarian Critical Theory
The Pornography of Meat
Both by Carol Adams

#7 SAute

SAute
  • legacy participant
  • 7 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 09:08 AM

Thanks for the replys..
Well.. yes as i search around alittle more this topic has blown up, along with others.
So im not going to burn polenta cake :biggrin:

#8 Toliver

Toliver
  • participating member
  • 4,626 posts
  • Location:Bakersfield, California

Posted 09 October 2003 - 09:16 AM

My question is...
What's everyones feeling about foods thats not been fully cooked.

If it's on my plate and it ain't cooked, it'd better be sushi or salad. Otherwise it's going to be sent back to the kitchen to be cooked properly. :cool:

“Peter: Oh my god, Brian, there's a message in my Alphabits. It says, 'Oooooo.'
Brian: Peter, those are Cheerios.”
– From Fox TV’s “Family Guy”


#9 mamster

mamster
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 2,918 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 09:19 AM

The Dalai Lama isn't a vegetarian!
Matthew Amster-Burton, aka "mamster"
Author, Hungry Monkey, coming in May

#10 =Mark

=Mark
  • participating member
  • 2,742 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 09:22 AM

It is true that uncooked veggies have more nutrients than cooked ones. Of course these nutrients are of little use locked into strong cell walls. Cooking ruptures the cell walls and permits the nutrients within to be made available for digestion. Minerals, on the other hand are not affected by cooking, but can be lost to boiling water.
=Mark

Give a man a fish, he eats for a Day.
Teach a man to fish, he eats for Life.
Teach a man to sell fish, he eats Steak

#11 eliotmorgan

eliotmorgan
  • legacy participant
  • 68 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 09:42 AM

Indeed the Dalai Lama is not a vegetarian but the Panchen Lama is reported to be:-) I suggested the books to underscore just how deep such food beliefs go.

#12 Busboy

Busboy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 4,426 posts
  • Location:Washington, DC

Posted 09 October 2003 - 10:01 AM

My question is...
What's everyones feeling about foods thats not been fully cooked.

If it's on my plate and it ain't cooked, it'd better be sushi or salad. Otherwise it's going to be sent back to the kitchen to be cooked properly. :cool:

What, no carpaccio?
I'm on the pavement
Thinking about the government.

#13 FoodMan

FoodMan
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 4,316 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 12:10 PM

It is true that uncooked veggies have more nutrients than cooked ones.  Of course these nutrients are of little use locked into strong cell walls.  Cooking ruptures the cell walls and permits the nutrients within to be made available for digestion.  Minerals, on the other hand are not affected by cooking, but can be lost to boiling water.

Somebody had been watching Alton Brown too much :biggrin: ...what episode was it?? I think the beet one.

E. Nassar
Houston, TX

My Blog
contact: enassar(AT)gmail(DOT)com


#14 fifi

fifi
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 7,727 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 09 October 2003 - 12:20 PM

Uncooked veggies also have compounds that are toxic, carcenogenic, and can lock up vital nutrients. See Steingarten.

Moderation, folks. Moderation.

Edited by fifi, 09 October 2003 - 12:23 PM.

Linda LaRose aka "fifi"

"Having spent most of my life searching for truth in the excitement of science, I am now in search of the perfectly seared foie gras without any sweet glop." Linda LaRose

#15 foodie52

foodie52
  • participating member
  • 1,498 posts
  • Location:Austin, Texas

Posted 09 October 2003 - 02:03 PM

For what it's worth, my Chinese acupuncturist who is very respected in his field, maintains that raw, cold food is not good for the body. He always tells me that warm, cooked food, preferably with ginger and garlic, is best for total health.

#16 Toliver

Toliver
  • participating member
  • 4,626 posts
  • Location:Bakersfield, California

Posted 09 October 2003 - 03:10 PM

For what it's worth, my Chinese acupuncturist who is very respected in his field, maintains that raw, cold food is not good for the body. He always tells me that warm, cooked food, preferably with ginger and garlic, is best for total health.

You may want to talk to your acupuncturist again. Yes, ginger and garlic are supposed to be very good for your health in asian cultures. But in asian cultures, "cold" food isn't necessarily temperature cold and "hot" foods aren't necessarily temperature hot.
It's about (I'm spelling this phonetically) "lo" and "hey" and eating a combination of these two kinds of food to balance your personal energy or "chee" (spelled "chi", I believe).
For example, watermelon is considered a "cold" food and to eat too much of it is considered a "bad" thing. Mangoes, on the other hand, are considered a "hot" food. Potato chips are considered a "hot" food.
My coworker is from Vietnam and was trying to explain the concept to me. She said she will try to get a list from her mom of what is "hot" and "cold" and I can post more later when she does.
She said, for example, when you're talking or eating and you bite your tongue or cheek it's because you have too much "hey" in your body. So you need to eat more "lo" foods to bring yourself back into balance.

Regarding foods and the cooking process, Dr. Andrew Weil, in a Barnes and Noble interview kind of backs up what fifi and =Mark have said:

It's good to have a mix. I don't think an all-raw diet is good. Many vegetables contain toxins that are easily destroyed by cooking. And some nutrients become more available to the body in cooked form, like the carotene pigments of carrots and dark leafy greens. These pigments are oil soluble, meaning they need fats to get transported across the walls of the gut.



“Peter: Oh my god, Brian, there's a message in my Alphabits. It says, 'Oooooo.'
Brian: Peter, those are Cheerios.”
– From Fox TV’s “Family Guy”


#17 foodie52

foodie52
  • participating member
  • 1,498 posts
  • Location:Austin, Texas

Posted 11 October 2003 - 06:08 PM

Thanks for that clarification...

He did say, though, that cooked foods are better for the body. Not "hot" or "cold". I'm familiar with that concept in Oriental medicine. Of course, some things just have to be eaten raw to be enjoyed!

#18 ExtraMSG

ExtraMSG
  • participating member
  • 2,311 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 13 October 2003 - 08:43 PM

Food history and food science books usually go into the benefits of cooking quite convicingly. I suggest that anyone who loves food take the time to read a food history book and a food science book at least once. Gives you a lot of perspective.

I love it when raw foodists, vegans, and vegetarians start talking about meats as carcasses, etc. It shows the true motivation: aesthetics. It's not about what's healthy or good. That's secondary to the idea of what a beautiful world entails.

I much prefer the perspective Bourdain, and the 3rd world peasants he's gleaned it from, brings to the discussion, a profound respect for the food. I do think it's terrible how we waste food in this country and a lot of that waste is because of aesthetics. Goat head, chicken feet, pork kidneys, etc, are "disgusting" so we don't eat them. We want things that look as little like the animal as possible, hamburgers and hotdogs. Well, that's not respecting the food or the animal that gave it to us. That animal gave it's life so that ours could continue with increased vigor. a) we should have a certain gratefulness, and b) we should try to make the best of that sacrifice by not wasting.

#19 eliotmorgan

eliotmorgan
  • legacy participant
  • 68 posts

Posted 13 October 2003 - 09:15 PM

I love it when raw foodists, vegans, and vegetarians start talking about meats as carcasses, etc.  It shows the true motivation: aesthetics.  It's not about what's healthy or good.  That's secondary to the idea of what a beautiful world entails.

I much prefer the perspective Bourdain, and the 3rd world peasants he's gleaned it from, brings to the discussion, a profound respect for the food.  I do think it's terrible how we waste food in this country and a lot of that waste is because of aesthetics.  Goat head, chicken feet, pork kidneys, etc, are "disgusting" so we don't eat them.  We want things that look as little like the animal as possible

I agree with you on the aesthetics of food. When my wife and I lived in Hong Kong, we entertained more than a few guests who were horrified by fish or foul served with the head on. It’s actually prized in most cultures, but here they become dog food. Try finding blood to make traditional blood sausages in a supermarket, or a Duck with its head on to prepare Peking style.

That said, I am interested in the techniques raw foodiests use, because they can, with profit, be incorporated into normal cooking.

Edited by eliotmorgan, 13 October 2003 - 09:18 PM.


#20 ExtraMSG

ExtraMSG
  • participating member
  • 2,311 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 13 October 2003 - 09:54 PM

That said, I am interested in the techniques raw foodiests use, because they can, with profit, be incorporated into normal cooking.


That would be interesting and noteworthy. However, you don't see many people praising places like Roxanne's for how it furthers the cooking landscape as a whole, but rather how it furthers its politics.

#21 eliotmorgan

eliotmorgan
  • legacy participant
  • 68 posts

Posted 22 October 2003 - 04:45 PM

I'm a Trotter fanatic and I just got off the phone with Sari Zernich who does his R & D, and recipe testing. Here's the latest: RAW is now on his site and marked as "out of stock." You can order it now and it will ship in about a week.

Next April (approx): The Kitchen Sessions--a must have cookbook--is going to have a volume 2, and a new set PBS series.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Cookbook