Fat Guy

I'm trying to make three points here: 1. Ssam Bar and 15 East didn't open in 2007. So even a McDonald's that opened in 2007 has more right to be on the list than those places. Certainly, Graffiti does. 2. It's not just that the list is screwed up. It's that the system underlying the list is screwed up. Crave Ceviche Bar and Kampuchea: never reviewed. Graffiti and Toloache: only covered in "Dining Briefs," and not well -- evidencing the limitations of that form. How can we expect Bruni to include Graffiti in his top ten when it was reviewed by Meehan? There has always been a troublesome crossover zone between the fine-dining reviews and the "$25 and Under" territory, but this is the year that the crossover is happening at the exact spot where the most interest is. And, this is the year that "$25 and Under" only ran every other week. 3. On the one hand, Bruni writes a gigantic article that essentially translates to: "The innovative, inexpensive, interesting newcomers are the best restaurants of 2007." Then, he does a top 10 list that largely ignores that conclusion. And I get the impression he hasn't even dined at all the relevant places, otherwise he'd at least have mentioned them in the big piece.

Frank Bruni offered up his list of 2007's 10 best new restaurants today in the New York Times. It is: 1. MOMOFUKU SSAM BAR 2. SOTO 3. (TIE) ANTHOS 4. INSIEME 5. PARK AVENUE WINTER/SPRING/SUMMER/AUTUMN 6. RESTO 7. 15 EAST 8. ALLEN & DELANCEY 9. PAMPLONA 10. MAI HOUSE The list is prefaced by the caveat that some of the restaurants opened in 2006 but were reviewed in 2007. Which means it's not a list of the 10 best new restaurants of 2007. But no matter. I've got to say, while I haven't dined at every restaurant on the list (not even close), I think Bruni has missed out on several of the best openings of 2007. The issue, I think, is that -- as Bruni himself notes in his year-end roundup piece -- the action in 2007 was at the middle of the price spectrum. In other words, this was the year of restaurants on the border between Frank Bruni's territory and Peter Meehan's "$25 and Under" territory. How ironic, then, that this was also the year "$25 and Under" got cut to every other week. So, in a year when we needed them most, we had the fewest serious reviews of the restaurants where the real 2007 action was. Crave Ceviche Bar. Kampuchea. Graffiti. Toloache. These restaurants have been either ignored or relegated to "Dining Briefs" treatment. The Times didn't need to reach back to 2006 for the best new restaurants of 2007. Rather, it needed more serious treatment of the "$25 and Under" category as well as a more coherent dividing line between the territories of the two critics. And there needed to be year-end roundups from both critics.

Right, it's not that new-paradigm restaurants can't offer "tweaked rustic" or any other category of food. It's that the paradigm rejects such categories altogether. This rejection of categories is one of the things that makes it impossible to define the new paradigm using old-paradigm terminology. In this regard, Ssam Bar strikes the new-paradigm bullseye because it's so at peace with category-free food. Restaurants like p*ong are farther from the bullseye because they are, as Bruni likes to say, "fussy." And restaurants like Back Forty don't count at all, because they're exclusively "tweaked rustic." Interesting that Bruni doesn't mention Back Forty, though, because it's so on target to his thesis. Maybe there's one restaurant I've dined at that Bruni hasn't!

I give Frank Bruni credit for a few things. First, he has an incredible body of knowledge due to his relentless and well-funded dining schedule. So he's able to pull together information in a way that perhaps nobody else in the city can. That essay is a real tour-de-force and he gets a lot of things right. Second, of the major critics, he comes closest to understanding the connections among the restaurants that several of us have been calling "new paradigm." I'm not sure any other major critic is even in the ballpark. So that's an accomplishment. But at best what he has come up with is a near miss. I'd call it the old-paradigm understanding of the new paradigm. Indeed, in describing Ssam Bar, Bruni uses the word "paradigm" but in a pedestrian sense: Again and again throughout the piece, he comes close but reaches unremarkable conclusions. And then the discussion devolves into nonsensical New York Times-esque overreaching, such as: That sort of inane comment makes one wonder if Frank Bruni actually lives in New York City.

Hey, all the cool Thermapen colors only come in F. If I'm not mistaken, the only one that comes in C is the ugly gray one. What's up with that?

I'd suggest limiting the discussion to "wheat like pancakes" just for the sake of comprehensibility. For potato pancakes, et al., I'd suggest separate topics (which, in some cases, are already out there). Here's what's in Bisquick: - Flour (specifically, enriched bleached wheat flour) - Partially hydrogenated soybean and/or cottonseed oil - Baking soda, sodium aluminum phosphate, monocalcium phosphate (in other words, baking powder) - Dextrose (aka sugar) - Salt Hey, that looks a lot like the pancake recipes listed above. Some people fundamentally don't like the taste of Bisquick-derived products, however it's probably not on account of Bisquick containing any weird ingredients. I think it's all about the ratios. When we do a Bisquick knockoff using flour, baking powder and salt, with a neutral oil added to the recipe (we omit the sugar), it tastes pretty much like Bisquick. When it comes to pancakes, I think the reason some people don't like Bisquick pancakes is simply that the standard ratios called for on the box make a batter that's too stiff. When you add more milk and use larger eggs, it really transforms the end result into something that few if any people would guess is from a mix.

I don't think it's even possible to switch entirely. If you live in the US, the US customary system (which is not synonymous with Imperial or English) isn't something you can just ignore. It's how ovens are marked, it's how various measuring devices measure, it's how nearly all non-professional recipes are written, etc. So the best one can hope for is to be conversant with both systems. For myself, however, I've been converting all my (very few) frequently used recipes into SI (that's the official name of the metric system, from the French Système International d'Unités or International System of Units). For pastry-and-baking recipes, where it's typical to combine all the ingredients in a bowl on a scale, I'm using grams for everything -- even liquid -- as tino27 does and as many professional sources do.

I can't believe I never thought of starting with the butter so as to avoid the use of an additional small bowl.

This morning we made pancakes. Last night, I decided to review all the eG Forums literature on pancakes. Unfortunately, because of dead links, print references and a lot of assumed knowledge, the old topics weren't as useful as they could have been. So, I thought we'd start fresh and try to do it right this time. I propose the following guidelines for this, the pancake topic to end all pancake topics: 1 - State your pancake formula up front. Saying "I use the recipe in Cookbook X" isn't helpful to people who don't have that cookbook. Likewise, links to recipes elsewhere are, as history demonstrates, likely to go dead at some point. So, while it's good to give credit where credit is due (a link, the name of a book), we also need to know the actual formula. We're talking about pancake recipes, so they're not complex or lengthy. Just list your ingredients and amounts. 2 - Don't assume too much knowledge. Saying "I add buttermilk," without more, isn't as useful a piece of advice as laying out your formula and specifying how much buttermilk you use, and why. 3 - Be as specific as possible about techniques, equipment and other elements of pancake cookery. For example, if you use an electric griddle, let us know which one you use, what setting you use and any other tips and tricks. 4 - Embrace the diversity of pancake styles. The pancake topic to end all pancake topics need to be ecumenical on questions of thin v. thick, wheat v. buckwheat, etc. What we should do is try to lay out the ways to do each, not argue about which is better. Make sense? Let me start with a confession: we often use Bisquick. For those of you who don't live in Bisquick nations, Bisquick is mixture of flour, leavening agents, salt and shortening -- basically all the dry ingredients for pancakes (or biscuits, or a million other things). You just add eggs and milk and you have pancake batter. I know it's not cool to use Bisquick, but, well, I'm sorry. Anyway, the formula on the Bisquick box is: 2 cups Bisquick 1 cup milk 2 eggs I've made two modifications to the recipe. First, because I have various objections to volume measures for dry ingredients, I use a scale for pretty much everything these days -- including liquid ingredients. I've also been switching over to the metric system, so my recipe card is in grams. Second, I think the pancakes come out better if you use a little more liquid than the recipe specifies. Interestingly, the simplest shorthand conversion actually makes this happen. I also am guessing that the test-kitchen recipe assumes large eggs whereas the eggs in my refrigerator are almost always extra large or jumbo. (I prefer to weigh eggs for large recipes, but for small recipes I give in to the convenience of whole-egg units.) So, when I do it, it looks like this: 250 g Bisquick 250 g milk 2 extra-large eggs This gives a slightly thinner batter than the official recipe, and the 250/250 system is really simple. Put the bowl on the scale. Tare. Add Bisquick up to 250 g. Add milk up to 500 g (or tare and go to 250). Add 2 eggs. You never even have to use a measuring cup (or two), so in the end the scale method winds up being a little bit quicker (if you always have a scale out on your counter anyway). We don't always use Bisquick. When we don't use Bisquick, however, we use the same formula but just add baking powder, salt and either oil or melted butter. In other words, 250 g of all-purpose flour, 250 g of milk, 2 extra-large eggs, plus 15 g of baking powder, 5 g of salt and 30 g of either oil or melted butter. The liquid balance of the recipe remains pretty much the same if you do it this way. Stir with a wooden spoon until most of the visible lumps are out, though it's fine if a few remain. Resting the batter for about half an hour after making it improves the pancakes in various ways. It seems to resolve any powdery spots, and they come out a little bit fluffier. But even a ten-minute rest is helpful. I know you're supposed to do this in the refrigerator, presumably for food-safety reasons, but I do it on the countertop. In terms of cooking pancakes, I don't have an electric griddle or even a stovetop griddle. I use a 12" nonstick skillet, which accommodates four pancakes made with what I would guess is 50 ml of batter each. I'm saying 50 ml because I use a 1/4 cup plastic measuring cup (which would be about 60 ml) and don't fill it quite to the top, plus because the batter is sticky some of it remains behind in the cup. I heat the skillet until drops of water dance pretty rapidly over its surface. I really should measure it with an infrared thermometer, but I don't have one. I put a pat of butter in, swirl it around, then wipe most of it out with a bunched up paper towel. This leaves enough of a film of butter to give a little flavor and help with browning, but not enough to make a mess of things. I've never been able to judge doneness by the bubbles. They help a little, but ultimately I have to life one pancake a little bit to see the color of the underside (which will eventually be the top presentation side). When it's the right golden brown, that's when I flip the pancakes. The second side cooks for much less time. My preference is to serve pancakes with a mixture of warm maple syrup and melted butter, which basically means putting maple syrup and butter in a Pyrex cup and microwaving it a little (not too much -- maple syrup will bubble over if you're not careful). Next?

Right, the oven temperatures can't really be "switched" to metric because my oven dial is in degrees F. It's not like I'm going to go out and get a replacement dial with metric markings. So for oven temperatures the exercise is somewhat academic. Still, in order for me to make things work out for me and the metric system I'm going to need to be conversant with both scales. That means, for example, that I need to be able to look at a European recipe that calls for an oven temperature of 180 C and I need to be able to do a quick cheat conversion. And, as luck would have it, doubling is an excellent cheat (in this case, the exact conversion for 180 C would be 356 F, so doubling to get 360 F is totally acceptable). Working in the other direction, here are the real equivalents for the most common oven temperatures (which also covers deep frying temperatures) if you round the C to the nearest whole number: 225 F = 107 C 275 F = 135 C 325 F = 163 C 375 F = 191 C 425 F = 218 C 475 F = 246 C As far as I can tell, that means if you use the simple halving/doubling formula in the normal oven-temperatures range your margin of error always stays within 5%. Also, at 325 it's just about perfect. So, since doubling/halving as oven/frying shorthand passes my 5% test, it sounds like I should adopt that one. Now, another area where I need temperature help is in the area of meat doneness. Here, the doubling cheat won't work. So, are there any good systems for remembering rare, medium rare, medium, etc., for meat?

I'm pretty sure C x 1.8 + 32 is the exact formula, not just a rough estimate. The C x 2 + 32 estimate works really well for the temperatures at which humans dwell, however it becomes wildly inaccurate when you try to use it for oven temperatures. For example, 200 C by the rough estimate works out to 432 F, but it's actually 392 F -- too big an error for baking. I'm actually wondering if simple doubling/halving would work well for an oven-temperature conversion. I'd have to test it on a variety of numbers.

I understand the sentiment. It's how I felt for a long time. But I really think that if you take the Broadway-store expansion into account and you shop at off hours as I do, the present-day reality is that there's a lot less of a reason to go to Harlem. I think I mentioned above that one of the more irritating aspects of Fairway is the inconsistency of its inventory. At normal supermarkets you very rarely show up and find something missing. It happens, but it's a surprise. At Fairway, when you make your shopping list, you're pretty much forced to have a backup for every product you list. Some products are particularly unreliable in their appearances, so it's best to buy multiples when they're present. For example, in the back corner freezer case, they stock two brands of frozen cheese ravioli: the excellent ones from Fiorella Pasta Co. in the Bronx, and the totally inferior ones from Yoni's. They always have the Yoni's, but they only have the Fiorella about a quarter of the time (in other words, I go four times a month and see it once). Another place the inventory is inconsistent is on the chips/pretzels/crisps rack. You never know when they're going to have the brand and shape of pretzel you set out to get. Upstairs, the Solana Gold apple sauce is always there but the all-Gravenstein variety with the darker green banner on the label only makes occasional appearances -- and it's much better than the regular. Drives me nuts.

250ml of liquid = 1 cup and 100g = 1/4 pound are exactly the sort of quick conversions I'm looking for, if they're usable. My concern, however, is that these conversions may be insufficiently accurate for any but the most flexible recipes. For example, according to Google, 100g = 3.527oz, whereas 1/4 lb is of course 4oz. That's something on the order of a 12% error, which is more than I'm comfortable with for, certainly, baking. Now, the 250ml measure seems a bit more usable. 250 ml = 1.056 cups. Thats a little less than a 6% error, which to me is almost not worth caring about in any recipe that doesn't depend on a very intricate chemical reaction. I think, however, that I'd be more comfortable with shorthand formulas that produce conversion errors of less than 5%.

I've decided to switch to metric. Call it a New Year's resolution, whatever, but it starts now. It's not a value judgment. I've just found that culinary professionals are doing it, and so a lot of stuff that comes across my desk now assumes metric: nearly all professional pastry recipes measure in metric weights, the low-temperature-cooking literature uses degrees C, and of course just about anything published outside the United States uses metric. Not to mention, the Thermapen, which seems to be the premier food thermometer on the market, forces you to choose between F and C when you buy one -- there's no switch. The main category of non-metric food literature at this point is amateur cookbooks and magazines published in the US (plus recipe websites with a core US audience -- though I'm pleased to say that our RecipeGullet database displays all recipes in either system). But I mostly read those sources for ideas, not for actual recipes that I'm going to follow. The recipes I'm likely to follow these days are mostly in metric. So, I'm going to make the change, and I could use some help. Here's what I'm trying to accomplish: Yes, I know how to convert using various mathematical formulas. Yes, I know how to convert using Google or any of a zillion other online tools. But I don't want to be operating at that level. I want to internalize metric cookery so I don't have to look anything up. So, I'm most interested in: 1 - Conversion tips and tricks that go beyond computation. For example are their mnemonics, quick-and-dirty abbreviated brainless formulas, etc.? 2 - Basic tables of the most common conversions (common oven temps, common volume measures, etc.) such that I can create a one-sheet guide to stick on the refrigerator. 3 - Tales of success or woe, inspiration or warning, from others who've tried to switch over.

Interesting. Do you know who sells the 24oz Chivalry glass? I wasn't able to turn it up with Google.

So the cheapo thermocouple unit is thus far exceeding expectations in every way. The Comark P250, however, while a cool-seeming device, has failed all the basic tests and has been returned to the seller. Still considering my options, but the Thermapen seems more compelling every day.

I like Zabar's a lot but the lack of more than token produce means it's not a complete store. The thing about Fairway is that it has most of the quality of the best gourmet stores but a sufficient breadth of product selection to make it usable as a real supermarket where you do your full weekly shopping. Citarella is good for some specific items (fish, needless to say) but if you try to do your full weekly at Citarella you'll spend a lot more than at Fairway and you won't do as well overall. I certainly like to visit Zabar's and Citarella for limited incursions (ditto for Eli's, Vinegar Factory, Citarella and several other East Side places that are relatively convenient to me), such as if I need fish and happen to be near Citarella that day or if I'm having a party and want appetizing from Zabar's, but Fairway is where I do the weekly shopping. Back in the day, I might have made a stop at Zabar's and a stop at Citarella before going to Fairway, then taken everything home at once. But now that I shop with a two-year-old it's just not happening. The one-stop aspect of Fairway becomes decisive. When the Harlem Fairway opened, it was in many ways superior to the Broadway Fairway. That state of affairs didn't hold, though. When Fairway expanded into the new space and the upstairs, I believe it became as good or better overall. There are, however, specific things that are cool about the Harlem store (e.g., the cold room is pretty amazing, and they have a lot of interesting Latin produce).

On account of their inefficient shapes, I don't think hourglass beer glasses are particularly desirable as general-use drinking glasses. Those 23-ounce pilsner glasses tend to be more imposing than an efficiently shaped 32-ounce tumbler. They can also be a bit tippy.

The quick-rising method I've outlined above doesn't just produce edible bread. It produces delicious bread of certain types. In 90 minutes. In terms of Whitley and Bertinet's health claims, what are their scientific sources, or what experiments have they performed to confirm that claim? If a baker tells me something about baking technique, I tend to believe it. If a baker starts talking about issues of public health, without more, I assign it no more credibility than a claim by any random person. Anyway, in my direct experience serious artisan breads are harder to digest than cheap supermarket breads. Nor does the digestibility theory stand up to basic logic tests. Whole-grain breads are so much harder to digest than white breads, that difference has got to overshadow any possible variance between white supermarket bread and white artisan bread. Even if it is the other way around, any bread is easier to digest than a hundred other foods we eat, so there can't be much impact to differences in bread digestibility in a population where bread is only part of the diet. Anyway, what about all the flatbreads, quick breads, pastries, etc., that rely on flour that hasn't undergone much rising at all, or is risen by baking powder or baking soda? Plus, we're not talking about supermarket bread here. If there's a problem with supermarket bread, it seems far more likely that it's from the additives and preservatives rather than from the speed of the rise. And that's not what we're talking about with the quick-rise method. This method works with the same ingredients as artisan bread. If everybody switched from supermarket bread to quick-rise homemade bread, I bet that would be a big step up. Until somebody presents credible supporting data, I think the contention that fast-risen bread is hard to digest has old-wives'-tale status at best.

The wide-mouth jars are only slightly less unpleasant to drink out of than the regular ones. You still have all those threads to contend with. I don't like all that hardware in my mouth. Jars are only good as drinking vessels if you're drinking with a straw. Much better: sawed-off wine bottles. I know a few people who've made sets of glasses from 750ml wine bottles cut off at the shoulders and sanded down to have a smooth lip. Depending on the type of bottle (Bordeaux-style, Burgundy-style, Alsace-style) and where you make the cut you can various capacities. The most you can do is, if memory serves, about 23 ounces with a high-shouldered Bordeaux-style bottle cut as high up as possible, but that's still respectable. It would be nice to try that trick with, for example, some 1-liter olive-oil bottles.

Fish pants. One of many trends I'm trying, and failing, to start.

Also wanted to contribute this illustration of the of πr²h formula, or some variant of it, as applied to drinking glasses. I was able to find a product spec sheet and add some numbers so we could see the progression in 4oz increments. As you can see, when you double volume your height and radius don't increase nearly as much.

That's what I was referring to when I said the big cups you find at normal stores are generally plastic tumblers intended for poolside use. The main problem with the insulated ones is that the double-wall design greatly expands their size on account of the thick walls. Polycarbonate is also pretty thick on its own -- about as thick as glass for the equivalent product. So for plastic I prefer the SAN type, since those have nice thin walls and are very durable in the dishwasher. The polycarbonate ones claim to be dishwasher safe but in my experience they don't actually survive repeated dishwashing and drying all that well.

The book has several recipes that use a sponge, so there's a whole 'nother step in addition to what I've outlined above. This, plus the special circumstances of the pain de mie baking arrangement, makes it one of the more advanced recipes in the book. But, after making this particular recipe the right way a few times, I found that it worked pretty much as well without the sponge step. So you can certainly merge the first couple of steps if you like. This is my summary of the recipe, with parenthetical comments that aren't necessarily part of the official recipe. Mind you I haven't made it in a while, but I think I've got all the knowledge captured here: - 1 cup milk (at 110 degrees) - 2.5 cups plus 3 tablespoons bread flour (needless to say this should just be taken to mean "a little more than 2.5 cups") - 1 teaspoon sugar - 2 teaspoons yeast (the recipes in the book call for "50% faster" yeast but I ignore that -- everything works just fine with whatever yeast you happen to have) - 1.5 teaspoons salt - 3 tablespoons unsalted butter (I use whatever butter is around) For the sponge: fit processor bowl with metal blade, add 1 cup of the flour plus all the sugar, all the yeast and 3/4 cups of the milk. Process for 10 seconds. Remove the processor blade. Put the processor bowl with sponge into the microwave. (Small glass of hot tap water at the back corner of the microwave.) Heat on low for 3 minutes. Rest for 3 minutes. Put the processor bowl back on the machine and put the blade back in. Add the remaining flour, the salt and the butter. Process for 10 seconds (until well blended), then start adding the rest of the milk, drizzling until the dough forms a ball (you may not need all the milk). Continue processing for 45 seconds. You may have to add a little flour if the dough starts acting too wet and sticky. Remove the blade, do the doughnut thing with the dough, put the dough in the bowl and the whole package in the microwave with that little glass of water at the back of the oven. Heat on low for 3 minutes. Rest for 3 minutes. Heat on low for 3 minutes. Rest for 20 minutes (it usually takes less than 20 minutes). Dough is ready for the next step when it has doubled in size. Remove the dough, punch it down and manhandle it into a ball, and then shape it a bit and put it in a greased glass loaf pan. Cover with microwave-safe plastic wrap. Put it in the microwave. Heat on low for 3 minutes. Rest for 3 minutes. Remove the plastic wrap, cover the loaf pan with a piece of greased aluminum foil with the greased side facing down. Cover that with another glass dish, weighed down with beans or pie weights. Bake at 425 F for 40 minutes. (A few more parenthetical comments: The trick is getting the right size loaf pans so that, in the last rise, the dough comes up three quarters of the way to the top of the loaf pan. That way when it bakes it will hit the top with the right amount of energy to make a nice pain de mie loaf. The book recommends 8.5" x 4.5" x 2.5" for the loaf pan, and recommends a 6.5" x 9.5" casserole dish to put on top. I actually use a clay loaf pan that's 8" x 5" x 3" and it works fine. I cover it with a 10.5" cast-iron skillet so I don't have to use weights. It's a little precarious, but so what? Like I said, this is one of the more advanced recipes in the book and has several steps that kind of need to be adjusted for your ingredients, equipment and luck. So unless you have a decent amount of baking experience, I wouldn't start with this recipe as your first foray into micro-rise baking. You can be almost assured that this recipe won't work on your first try. At least, it took me several tries to get it right. But once you get it right, I think you'll agree it makes a pretty good pain de mie.)

My wife doesn't eat pork but eats most other stuff. We've been to both Momofukus several times and she's always dined very well. Not a problem at all.