sizzleteeth

I am sorry to hear that, I have been there a few times and it does take some time to look through everything. The woks are in the back left hand corner along the left and back walls - all different sizes - most stacked and wrapped loosely in plastic - some of the biggest I've ever seen. The cleavers at the end of the main aisle on the other side of all the butcher's blocks, though I remember many more varieties than you speak of out on display and several more in boxes. They do have quite a bit of Western restaurant supplies like meat slicers/grinders but I'm surprised to hear you say that was most of what you saw. It makes me wonder if I didn't accidentally send you to the wrong place - as I looked up the address on Google Maps based on it's proximity to Garfield and Sam Woo - I never bothered to actually look at the name or address when being there. I'll stop by and make sure.

There is an excellent Asian restaurant supply store on Valley Blvd a few steps from Sam Woo BBQ run by Cantonese. T and T Restaurant Supplies 530 West Valley Boulevard Alhambra, CA 91803-322 They have an enormous selection of reasonably priced woks from small to huge and an equally large selection of cleavers - from your standard Myland varieties to the hand made sort. As well as just about anything else you might want.

Some interesting viewpoints... reminds me of an old alchemical text:

In my opinion, a major strength and weakness of either movement is the same, analysis. The presence or lack thereof. The lack of analysis in tradition is its greatest strength and greatest weakness. The presence of analysis in the vanguard is the same. Tradition tends to trust in the nature of things, without asking too many questions as to why things happen; they are just that way because they are that way. This makes tradition weak in the sense that it often cannot explain the reasons for individual elements or outcomes, it only knows that when you heat water hot enough it boils, it doesn't know why - nor does it really matter - if it works or produces the desired end result. Of course the weakness lies in, when something doesn't work; an explanation as to why and a way to fix it are out of reach. It's like building your website with a WYSIWYG editor, but not knowing how to code or design. You are limited to the parameters that this method allows, but can easily and quickly produce excellent results with little or no knowledge of how things work. This is fine for most. The problem arises when you want to break out of those parameters, or when something doesn't work - you don't know how to fix it - because you don't understand how it works. If you have the knowledge to do by hand what the device does in a push button fashion - you have unlimited creative potential and can makes things look and work exactly as you wish. That is the strength of analysis. Though the weakness of analysis lies in the fact that there are many natural phenomena in this world which have existed without detailed explanation or focus for eternity, and generally require none. Anyone whom has stuffed aromatics in the cavity of a roasting turkey has made deliberate use of aroma to enhance their cuisine, anyone who has made homemade ice cream by first heating their milk has made a deliberate attempt to change the chemical structure of the dairy to produce a smoother end result. These things go without saying, and pointing them out is one thing - though focusing on them is quite another. I would liken it to sex. There are undoubtedly millions of subtleties in the process, most unspoken or simply known by intuition, and some still that occur without consciousness. Imagine if someone gave a play by play of the smallest detail during this process, leaving nothing to intuition. What if I, in the process of offering my affections to a woman explained, verbally, everything I was doing - why I was doing it and why it felt the way it feels - or worse - how it is supposed to feel? What do you think the standard reaction would be? "Beautiful, I am going to undo this button now and it will cause you to become more excited, the reason for this the reaction of chemical x and chemical y in your bloodstream, and if you think you feel good now just wait, I have devised a method for for the second button which magnifies the affect of the perception of my undoing the button, when in fact I have not undone the button at all. It should make you feel exactly the way you feel now only better, but only if you do what I say when I say and exactly the way I say it." I don't think, in most cases, that would be met favorably. Though I am not opposed to enhancing a mood or experience through more subtle, or not so subtle methods - as in everything there is a point when you have taken things too far. Analysis, intuition, explanation and silence all have their place and time. Anytime you make a sound in a place that others feel should be silent - you may be reprimanded. The key is in understanding when they are right and when they are wrong, when it doesn't matter, and when there is no correct answer.

Up early today I see, though I'm not sure what there is to "fight" about, as supposedly... Molecular gastronomy is dead. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodmonthly...1969722,00.html Though I'm not sure what anger of yours would be directed at me, because I certainly didn't kill it, and I actually find it a bit unfair - especially seeing that the creator is not even able to defend himself, having passed on some time ago. I don't believe that "Molecular Gastronomy" is the issue - or that it ever really was. It was simply incorrectly applied as a label to something else and fell victim to guilt by association. Like blaming the scientists who defined the properties of nitroglycerin, instead of the people using the information to blow up buildings (instead of treat heart conditions). It is conceivable that you would find my particular style of argument contradictory, since I am not exclusively on any side and agree/disagree with elements belonging to the same category, and I'm sure you will continue to see it as such. I'm a bit busy during the day, so please continue with whatever it is you have to say and I will do my best to respond this evening. Though I cannot predict the future.

In contrast to the above: Still live on the El Bulli website. About Molecular Cuisine - By Ferran Adria http://www.elbulli.com/historia/docs/2003-...olecular_en.pdf

The 2002 version of The Fat Duck website: http://web.archive.org/web/20020802192042/...od_science.html

One more interesting viewpoint... Wall Street Journal Article Only free on Friday - so read while you can. Gourmet Canned Cuisine http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116501867662438589.html? "Here's a secret of high-end cooking: That special taste may have come from Aisle 12. Why top chefs are mixing creamed corn, Gravy Master and supermarket mayo into $75 entrées." By KATY MCLAUGHLIN December 2, 2006; Page P1

Speaking of balance, after reading the link above, you might want to read what Hervé This himself has to say: http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v7/n11...EA0B519C47A21E1 I scanned through this a while ago but was just reminded of it today from a blog, so I read the whole thing. It's opening paragraph is interesting: Though I personally have to say I can see why confusion surrounds the issue, as the paper states both that "the 'molecular' in molecular gastronomy has the same definition as it does in molecular biology" - which "chiefly concerns itself with understanding the interactions between the various systems of a cell" at the molecular level while at the same time stating that "molecular gastronomy not only uses science to explore the technical aspect of cooking but also the 'art' and 'love' components". But I guess the gist is that findings from the investigation of the science behind cooking and eating gives cooks the information needed to understand techniques, new or old, whether used to create "Contemporary" or "Avant Garde" cuisine, or to better understand the cooking that was already being done. Which has been said many times. (Added): Though after reading this - things start to come into a bit more perspective: http://theory-in-practice.blogspot.com/200...detest-you.html It seems perhaps this whole thing has turned into a monster, perhaps one that was not intended to be created but was created none-the-less. It could be that droves of culinary students are abandoning discipline for fun and tradition for novelty. And the creators of the monster now wish to hide from it, so they are not eaten.

You are far from alone Miriam. Unfortunately we are all susceptible to logical argument, within which may lie equivocation, categorical syllogism, doublespeak, negative/affirmative or any number of elements that manipulate our perception. Molecular Gastronomy sounds scary, so people assume it must be. Molecular Gastronomy sounds scientific, so people assume it must be. Both of these things sound logical enough to be true, but are not necessarily true. A classic debate tactic. Exaggerated examples: Potassium Cyanide is a scary sounding chemical. Sodium Chloride is a scary sounding chemical. Sodium Chloride (Salt) is harmless So Potassium Cyanide (Poison) is harmless "Using Potassium Cyanide to cook is no different than using Sodium Chloride to make duck confit." Or perhaps.... Apples are natural Natural ingredients are good Cyanide is naturally present in apple seeds Cyanide is good (Though hydrogen cyanide and potassium cyanide are different things). Sometimes it's important to be careful the associations made in the mind, whether your own doing - or through the agenda of others. Innovation, tradition - there can be a balance between the two and they can exist in harmony. The new cookbook by Michael Richards is evidence enough of this. In fact seeing that innovation stands on a foundation of tradition, to destroy that foundation destroys both innovation and tradition. The scorpion and the frog.

And we could all learn a great deal from Bruce Lee. Liberate Yourself: Molecular Gastronomy is just a phrase, and like any phrase or symbol you can take it to mean what it actually means, see it for what it originally stood for, or you can choose to associate it with whatever you perceive it to be. This is a personal choice. What is Molecular Gastronomy literally? Molecular is defined as: "Of or relating to simple or basic structure or form" Gastronomy is defined as: "The art or science of good eating." So it stands to reason that "Molecular Gastronomy" is literally, in practice, investigating elements "relating to the basic structure of the art and science of good eating." Or, looking for the reasons cooking works and food is pleasing to the senses. That would include all aspects of art and science - from why food performs the way it does in any type of cooking to how the aesthetics in sight, sound, taste, touch and smell affect the way we like to eat, in any given context. Seems to me that applies to every cook on the planet to some degree - and always has. Though perception and interpretation, as always, belong to the individual.

Statement on the 'new cookery' "Below is the international agenda for great cooking written by Ferran Adria of El Bulli, Heston Blumenthal of the Fat Duck, Thomas Keller of the French Laundry and Per Se, and writer Harold McGee" Ferran Adria, Heston Blumenthal, Thomas Keller and Harold McGee Sunday December 10, 2006 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1968665,00.html

Calcium Chloride is an inorganic salt. Calcium Lactate is an organic salt. CC has a higher calcium content than CL – something like 36%.vs. 13% They are both highly soluble at various PH levels though inorganic salts generally have a tendency to be less soluble than organic salts - properties which are taken advantage of to form gels by other techniques involving the delaying of the reaction with a slowly soluble calcium salt – especially in acid PH. Lots of good information available on the FMC Biopolymer site, on properties and techniques - the largest producer of alginates – such as this section on forming a gel: http://www.fmcbiopolymer.com/PopularProduc...00/Default.aspx Considering the process involving dropping a flavored solution of sodium alginate into a calcium salt solution to form a sphere was patented in 1946 by William Peschardt to manufacture artificial cherries, it would seem we’ve been eating MG for the holidays for some 60 years… in our fruitcake. Manufacture of Artificial Cherries, Soft Sheets and the Like William Peschardt - July 9, 1946 U.S. Patent # 2403547 IMAGES

I didn't take any formal cooking classes while in Delhi unfortunately, I only sat in as a dinner for about 14 was prepared by a woman in her home. She had this crazy way of cooking chapatis, she stuck them to the insides of an empty pressure cooker pot and flipped it, open lid side down, onto a burner. That would be my other advice - if you know anyone, anywhere that might invite you for a meal - this would be as good as any cooking class you could take. Though I urge you not to eat anything before hand, as being a guest in their home - they will stuff you full until you pop. Covering your plate with your hands may spark a dangerous game of "Pong" with a spoon full of hot Dal. Ending in minor burns.... and another serving of dal.

Much appreciated. While you should be careful you will find deciding what to eat and what not to eat fairly intuitive. Hot food, boiled water (tea coffee etc) and common sense are the main advice I have, but bring some Immodium and an emergency antibiotic just in case - as your system may have trouble adjusting to the local flora - regardless of if you eat anything "bad" or not. Aquafina, Dasani and (my favorite) King Fisher Bottled Water are available everywhere, and easily identified as sealed - no problem there. Believe it or not while in Delhi I ate mostly street food, but I did have one particularly memorable meal at a place in New Delhi callled Volga, it's a really old place with 50's smoking jacket decor - you almost expect the Rat Pack to come walking down from upstairs. Food I had was great, drinks and wine (try the Riviera white - here or anywhere else - chardonnay/ugni blanc). Volga Restaurant 19-B, Connaught Place Delhi, Delhi 110 001 011 - 23322960, 23321473

Welcome back Gigni - looks like you did some good eatin'. How'd you like the Okonomiyaki?

I agree with elements of that statement - certainly if we expended more calories in exercise we would all be less likely to be overweight and exercise is a good thing - but that does not overshadow the fact the the over-intake of calories is the problem in the first place. I'm no scientist but I've read that most of your recommend calorie intake is expended just keeping you alive and breathing, your heart beating and your eyes seeing. The simple fact is if you take in less calories than you expend your body will feed on itself and you will lose weight - exercise may accelerate this process - but if you sit on your ass all day and eat less than your body expends keeping you alive - you will grow thin and weak and eventually die. If you simply learn to know your metabolism and watch your calorie intake according you your individual metabolics - you will not get fat. I realize this is easier in theory than in practice. It isn't even so much the quantity you eat - rather the calorie content of what you eat - 3 hostess lemon pies at 800 calories a piece and you're done for the day. How many of us know how many calories you eat a day?

Where does the allowance of the manipulation of food end? When does it cross the line from a relatively natural process to something entirely objectionable? I have recently seen discussions the notion of restaurants using Silica (Silicon Dioxide, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica, you know the stuff in those little packages in your new box of shoes that say "don't eat this") - which also appears in the ingredients of Burger King's "Angus Burger Patty". This ingredients list, like many others, contains a number of questionable substances. Do some cutting and pasting into Wikipedia. http://www.bk.com/Nutrition/PDFs/ingredients.pdf My point in bringing this up is that just because something is "derived from something natural" does not mean that what it came from was not poison to the human body in the first place - and it doesn't mean the way in which it has been modified or is affected by heat does not turn it into poison in whatever quantity, yeah HFC is derived from corn - but corn can also become moonshine and even gasoline. The notion that because something is derived from something natural it is "safe" or "healthy" is just as ridiculous as the notion that something created in a lab is "dangerous". The notion that "all processed food is bad" is just as ridiculous as the notion that "all natural food is good". Things must be evaluated on a case by case basis and the BIG PICTURE and THE LONG TERM must be taken into account. Take the example of Modified Tapioca Starch, such as in products sold by National Starch (www.foodinnovation.com). There is a great difference between a "physically modified tapioca starch" and a "chemically modified tapioca starch" - the latter of which is defined on their very site under resources-dictionary: "A starch which has been treated with chemicals so that some hydroxyl groups have been replaced by either ester or ether groups. Crosslinking, in which two hydroxyl groups on neighboring starch molecules are linked chemically is also a form of chemical modification. Very low levels of chemical modification can significantly change the rheological, physical, and chemical properties of starch. Chemically modified starch for use in foodstuffs is restricted in range and level of modification by various legislative bodies." Thus turning cassava into tapioca, tapioca into tapioca starch, tapioca starch into physically modified tapioca starch (which may be harmless) or into chemically modified tapioca starch which can be dangerous to the point that it's use must be regulated because when heated it is shown to block the absorption of iron and have other ill effects. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...6&dopt=Abstract Sure, maybe in small quantities heated, chemically modified tapioca starch isn't fatal or highly detrimental to your health - but then neither is antifreeze in the right quantity - and I'm told it's sweet and tastes really good - perhaps we should start allowing it as a sweetener in desserts? What is the big picture with HFC in my opinion? HFC has provided a cheap means of sweetening things that don't need to be sweetened, thus it is in EVERYTHING, not just in food where you have an ingredients list to recognize it, but also in the foods you are buying where no list is provided. It raises the calorie content of foods that otherwise may contain no sugar at all and most people don't read labels nor are they "calorie conscious" - so they are blindly consuming far more calories than they realize, especially when the calorie content of something they have eaten for years changes because of a shift in ingredients - they never even notice. Tastes are changed to the point that things that do not contain the sweet element (even if people are not conscious of things being sweetened) become undesirable. Ketchup with HFC becomes the default condiment because unsweetened ketchup is no longer palatable, things made with regular sugar become "not sweet enough" because of the affect of consuming hyper sweetened everything. The collective palates of a whole nation are changed to crave items with increased calorie counts in higher quantities - fatness is inevitable. Just because something is "approved for use" doesn't necessarily mean it should be used - I hope I'm not eating Red2G anytime soon - good thing it's banned everywhere except the U.K. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_2G

Though I wouldn't completely dismiss the role of TIC Gums (which was established in 1909). For $45 you can Order Their Book which they call a "culinary kit" - it explains all about hydrocolloids, gums etc etc. Try some on your own at home.

Yes... yes they are. But you gotta admit. $17.95 is pretty tempting...............

Sure you can.... "It's a once in a lifetime collaboration... FiveLeaf has teamed with seven of the world's greatest chefs to bring elite gourmet dining into one of your favorite places... home! Now all you have to do to experience a gourmet dinner prepared by Chefs Daniel Boulud, Mark Miller, Charlie Trotter, Thomas Keller, Antoine Westermann, Reine Sammut or Gerard Bertholon, is boil water. That's right, all you have to do is boil water and voilá you're enjoying international cuisine!" http://shop.cuisinesolutions.com/store/index.php

That may be the point that all this comes to, many are making arguments that Molecular Avant Garde cuisine is so far removed from any type of "regular food" that it not only deserves a category of it's own but that it should be viewed in an entirely different fashion than food cooked by traditional methods. This completely reminds me of the universal distinction between Commercial Food and Haute Cuisine but it seems two things are happening simultaneously. One is that the commercial food industry is entering the "organic and sustainable" food market at a very fast pace, as well the "Haute Cuisine" market is entering the territory that used to be isolated to Commercial Food companies. So it seems a type of segmentation is coming into existence in both arenas, the "Whole Foods" segment of the Commercial Food Industry and the "Processed Food" segment of the Haute Cuisine world. So perhaps some of the Trademark applications that we see with companies who have so "highly designed" their food and by proxy it's brand recognition like McDonalds and the "Big Mac" should be applied to this segment of fine dining - as the use of food additives and processes that were once largely isolated to Commercial Food so pervades the genre of cuisine and it produces such highly distinctive forms, tastes and textures that are so far removed from nature. I still don't know if I can completely agree with that viewpoint - but after thinking for a bit I can see how it might apply. Or maybe we're just talking about the "wrong" kind of protection, perhaps we should be more concerned with "Brand Identity" in this case than we are with actual dishes, which only make up a small part of the overall identity.

There is always seems to be the perception that "newer is better" - but it doesn't always hold up to scrutiny, I think the term is Zeitgeist, but I suppose that could even apply to a bygone era. We often end up returning to older things once the newness has worn off and then seek out newer things once the older things become tiresome. It is simply a cycle that repeats itself over and over - and it always will and both extremes of the cycle are happening with different groups and different people within those groups simultaneously like gyroscopes inside gyroscopes - balancing things out. The old cliche "those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" also comes into play. My Jacques Pepin reference is a case in point, I think most people see him as a "classical chef" and there is a whole sector of people who look to that and love it - but Pepin also ran the R&D lab at Howard Johnson for 10 years - he was one of the original "chefs in an R&D lab" putting commercial processing techniques into practice. So at one time he was doing some of the newest things there were to do in that context. I think a-lot of people know that - but they just don't think about it. I am a victim of this cycle as much as anyone, I see new cars while I'm in America and they look really nice but then I go to Bombay and see all the old cars they use for taxis and think they are more interesting and then back again. I think the real truth is we all need both, new and old, we need to embrace that cycle of balance. "Superior", "Surpass" are all relative terms and not only are they relative they are layers of relative, to who you are, where you live, what you like, how you grew up etc etc. There is no single correct answer - which makes figuring something like this out all the more difficult.

Precisely my point in joking about starting a "Culinary Record Label" and earlier joking about paying Michael Jackson when you make mayo. Though ridiculous notions, carry a stone center of truth. Rights can be owned by anyone and anyone who owns rights can sell rights to anyone. Money is a powerful motivator. When it is involved you should not underestimate anyone. I'm glad there are people who see this.

Maybe so, I expect to be taken apart for everything I've said - so let it commense. But regardless of what comes - I stand by my point of view.