paulraphael

I've been experimenting with my coffee lately. Trying to figure out why I've been making better coffee at my girfriend's apartment with a whirly blade grinder, no measuring, and no timing, than I do at home where everything's done with laboratory precision. I'm starting to gather that my grind is plenty coarse, and that I wasn't brewing long enough. I've always gone 4 minutes. I tried 3 minutes at the recommendation of many people and everything got exactly worse. So I went up to 5 minutes, which sounds long. Everything improved: better body, and the acidity brought into balance. I haven't played with the grind size much ... I'm keeping things close to the coarsest setting on my Baratza Maestro burr grinder. Seems like shorter brew times give thinner body and more pronounced acidity; longer brew times more body and more bitterness.

With print-to-order companies like Lulu and Blurb, this could be done with no investment besides volunteer labor. I've already designed a couple of books that were printed by these services. They don't do ring binding as far as I know. But the book could be designed so that people have the option to cut the spine off and punch their own holes.

The research I've seen from the last decade seems to dismiss the idea that there only a half dozen or so discreet tastes. Much of this yet to be supported by multiple studies, but my impression is that there are over a dozen known tastes, and a likelihood that more will be discovered. Among these are several distinct forms of bitterness, at least one metalic taste, alkalinity (we perceive it as soapiness), and fat. This is in a addition to umami, which may still be uncategorized, and non-taste physical sensations like pungency, "coolness," and tanins.

I haven't gone as far as tasting them side-by-side, but I tweaked the dark muscovado version until it tasted the same as my memory of the light muscovado version. All of this will depend on the actual molasses content of the light and dark sugars you're using ... expect some variation. I don't even know how consistent any given brand of sugar is over time. I'm guessing that exotic sugars like the muscovados could have more inconsistencies than the more industrial products. What surprised me is that in the brands I tried (inda tree and billingtons) the dark muscovado seems to have way, way more molasses than the light. I wasn't expecting to have to change the proportions as much as I did.

More true with hogs than with any other animal I know. They seem to process food very little before turning it into fat; this is why hogs that feed on apples taste fruity, hogs that feed on acorns taste nutty, hogs that feed on slop taste ... I've never raised a hog but have tasted some of the startling differences between varieties of Spanish ham. In these cases I believe the breed is often similar but the feed varies significantly.

Oh snap! I've recently rejiggered the recipe for dark muscovado. i did it to economize ... dark costs the same but has gobs more molasses in it, so you only need to use a fraction as much as you do with light. Your cookies were just much darker and heavier on the molasses flavors than the normal recipe. Who knows .. you might like your version better. For me, too much molasses overwhelms the butter and nut and vanilla flavors. Here's the update.

VG-1 is one of the best knife steels available. But i wouldn't trust calphalon to know what to do with it. When consumer companies like them sell OEM knives, they're usually designed by marketing people to appeal to an uneducated western consumer. Generally the edge geometry is much closer to what you'd expect from a european knife, so you don't get very good performance. I'd stick with companies that actually sell knives in japan, especially ones that get respect among pro users. By the way, VG-1 is essentially the same steel as sandvik 19C27 and Hitachi gin san ko, which are used on some of the highest performance knives made. But these companies generally ride on their own reputations, and don't make a big deal out of the steels they use.

My cousin, a chef in Milwaukee, needs some fresh ideas. He's 62, doesn't own his restaurant, has little saved for retirement, and is struggling against an economy that's made chefing harder even than usual. On top of it, he was recently in a car accident, and has been suffering from back pain ever since. I don't know how debilitating or longterm this injury is. He has not made a big name for himself in the culinary world in Milwaukee (is there one?) but is highly competent. And he's more educated and articulate than the average chef; before culinary school he pursued a doctorate in some other discipline. He speaks and writes well. He's also taught in culinary school, years ago. What kinds of options might be open to someone in his position? Back trouble or not, it seems his days on the line can't last forever. I'm thinking he needs to pursue a more non-traditional path, like maybe working for a food manufacturer, in management for a large food service company, teaching of some kind, consulting of some kind ... But I don't know what the real world looks like in these fields, especially not in that part of the country. I'll be happy to pass on any ideas.

Yeah, those straight gauge heavy aluminum ones might be the cheapest option that performs well. I have a 20qt version from the restaurant store. Only drawback is that the bare aluminum is reactive with acidic foods, so it wouldn't be a great choice for something like 20 quarts of chili. For stocks or poaching big things they're great.

They're similar but different. Sometimes tapioca starch gets sold as arrowroot, but tapioca is cheaper and easier to manufacture.

I don't think anyone here wants to collect knives. You're right that finding good blades is easy, but the OP was looking for knives that perform like his Watanabes, which are great blades. Nothing by Forschner, Shun, etc. comes close.

There are hundreds of stainless steels and hundreds of carbon steels. The only thing that makes stainless steel stainless is 13% or more chromium by weight. The amount of carbon and other alloying elements and of all the various proportions of ingredients make a huge difference. Wustof and the other solingen knife makers all use the same alloy; it's one optimized for corrosion resistance and toughness, at the expense of many other performance-related qualities. This alloy has little in common with the higher end stainless knife steels like the one tadatsuna uses. When I compared the white steel Tadatsuna to the stainless one, I found the stainless one to have slightly better edge retetention and resistance to chipping. I also liked that I didn't have to babysit the patina, or worry about it discoloring acidic foods when fresh off the sharpening stones. I have friends who have no problem with this, but I personally prefered the carefree feel of the stainless gyuto. In theory, the carbon steel one should take a slightly sharper edge, but with my journeyman sharpening abilities there was no noticeable difference. Both are extremely easy to sharpen. On the stones the stainless blade feel just like carbon steel. I like carbon steel for knives that mostly cut protein (slicing knives, etc.). I think you can get more bang for you buck with carbon, and for this kind of knife there's no downside. These are just my personal preferences. I know people who who prefer the carbon steel version of this knife. But I can promise that you won't be disapointed with the performance of the stainless version. It's a killer alloy.

Cool! The tadatsunas are rockstars. Any reason you're not considering the stainless one? I've had both the stainless and the white steel ... I kept the stainless one. Either one is so thin that I don't think the right handed version will bug you. If you just focus your sharpening on the other side, within half a year of pro use it will be a lefty knife. Another thought is that this knife is so light and nimble, you'll probably be comfortable with a longer size than you think. The 270mm size has a cutting edge that's actually more like 260mm. And it weighs ounces less than my 8" german knife. There is nothing you can do with a nakiri or a short gyuto that you can't do at least as well with a longer gyuto, unless you're forced to use a tiny workspace. It just takes some some addaptation.

I'd like to test this idea on myself. It seems like you did a bare-knuckles version of what I learned for getting a dog or cat to like new food ... sneak increasingly bigger portions into their current food, until they've gradually make the transition. You did it with will power rather than slow progression and sneakiness.

Did this just happen on it's own, or did you do something to help bring it about?

No difference, besides the generally significant differences in blade shape, metallurgy, and edge geometry. The issue raised was about carbon steel knives discoloring the food. There are carbon and stainless Japanese knives, just as there are carbon and stainless European knives. Sure. Speaking very generally, softer knives are easier to maintain and are more durable. Harder knives support higher performance edge geometries and hold their edges longer ... in other words, the tradeoff is casualness vs. performance. I think there's a lot to be said for the European knife approach. I like the idea of a single, jack-of-all trades chef's knife for all my prep ... one that doesn't need any fussing and that can be whacked into shape on a steel. But I've been spoiled by the performance of the gyuotos I've had, just as the OP seems to have been spoiled by his Watanabes. My recommendations have been based on the assumption that he wants something that performs like his Watanabes, without the specific drawbacks he mentioned.

Exactly, and I'm using "performance" in a precise sense. A knife that performs better isn't necessarily the better knife under all circumstances. Just as a formula-1 car isn't necessarily a better car for you than a mini van, even though in terms of pure performance there's no comparison. Japanese knives (and by this I'm really talking about knives that use Japanese technology, not knives made within their borders or by their citizens; there are now small smiths around the world who for all practical purposes are making Japanese knives) are capable of higher performance than Western knives because of their more sophisticated metalurgy, and the more sophisticated edge geometries that this allows. It's not much more complicated than that. As with many other high performance tools, there can be tradeoffs. If you want the best possible performance, you can't simply substitute a high end knife and continue cutting the way you always have. You have to learn the techniques that the knife supports (which are also the ones it can withstand).

Serious learning curve. Probably the hardest to use knife of them all. None of the techniques you're used to with a gyuto or a nakiri will work with an usuba. It's a fat, single-beveled knife, so it requires all the general single-beveled knife skills in order to cut straight. Also it has no belly at all. The edge hits the board square. So you have to train yourself to keep the edge perfectly square all the time. If the tip points down at all, it will catch. The edge of the knife is extremely thin and brittle and requires extremely delicate technique, otherwise the edge will just chip to pieces. I know people who have taught themeselves to use this knife adequately, as a hobby. But the only people I know who are proficient enough for the knife to make practical sense are chefs with Japanese training. Basically, if you have to ask, you don't want an usuba.

In other threads, some of us have come forward with the foods we don't like. Sometimes it's a matter of guilt (sophisticates are supposed to like truffles); other times inconvenience (brunch menus can be an assault when you don't like eggs); and sometimes a real professional problem (trying do the best possible job when preparing dishes you hate). Has anyone grappled with this and actually gotten themselves to like something? I don't mean overcoming an irrational fear and trying something for the first time ... I mean something you've actually tried—well made examples—and really found them offensive. If so, how did you do it? I'm also interested if you've managed to train the palate of anyone else, like your kids, spouse, or dog.

I've heard some speculation about this, but no clear answers. My hunch is that it's closer to your latter explanation; it's patterned roughly after Western knives and until fairly recently Western cooking was associated heavily with meat in Japan (because the Japanese ate virtually none, and had a strange relationship with the meat they did eat). But the gyuto is not seen as a specialized meat knife. In fact, traditional Japanese patterns like the yanagi make better meat slicing knives, the western-patterned sujihiki is a better carving knive, and the various patterns like honesukis and garasukis and petties make better butchering knives. The gyuto can't do precise vegetable prep as well as an usuba in the hands of someone with the associated hard-won skills. But for a general prep knife, especially where Western foods are concerned it outperforms everything else, including heavier European chef's knives, and the Japanese patterns made for amateur use, like the santoku and nakiri.

I used to pay a lot of attention to things like the feel of a handle and the balance of a knife. That comes from the European tradition of using a heavy knife that isn't especially sharp: you really work the handle on a knife like that. You grip it hard; you use a lot of force. And I still love the big honking handle and the neutral balance of my Schaaf chef's knife, which I pull out for heavy lifting like rock chopping woody herbs, pulverizing bulk chocolate, or beheading innocents. For most prep tasks, though, I use a much lighter and sharper gyuto, and can confidently say that things like the feel of the handle are practically irrelevent. Because you barely grip the knife at all. If European techniques require you to grip a knife like an axe, Japanese techniques require you to manipulate it like a violin bow or a scalpel: fingertips, the lightest possible touch. Any handle that isn't completely idiotic (um ... Mr. Onion, I hope you're not reading) will work fine. You're not even going to notice it. This is why it's a safe bet to buy knives with good reputations sight unseen. There's no guarantee that you'll like any given knife, but the qualities that make or break it for you will become evident with use and sharpening, not with a brief fondling at the store.

The structure in cookies actually comes from the starch in the flour (not gluten development) and from eggs. So you can use piles of oat flour if you want. I settled on 25% by weight ... enough to enhance chewiness and add nutty notes, but not so much that it starts tasting like an oatmeal cookie. I found 33% to be too much.

Removing sugar and gluten? Can you show me any peer reviewed research showing health benefits of doing this (not counting people with celiac disease)? It's a no-brainer to argue that people eat disproportionately too much of many things (top of the list: calories!) But god, the number of basic nutrients that have been demonized over the years as fundamentally bad covers just about all of them. Meanwhile, basic nutrition science, with regard to macronutrient ratios, hasn't changed significantly in 30 years or more. More and more research piles up, just slightly refining the same ideas. As far as high-quality, organic ingredients vs. factory-farmed equivalents ... I don't even know how to address that. You are conflating several ideas that have no fundamental relation to each other. There are high quality orgainic ingredients and low quality organic ingredients; high and low quality non-organic ingredients; high and low quality factory farmed ingredients; even organic and non-organic factory farmed ingredients! If what you're trying to say is that high quality food is healthier than low quality food, I don't think anyone would disagree ... but this thesis is a little too broad to test scientifically.

Yep, I did a bad search on PubMed when I found nothing. But I just did a good search, and found little of substance. The only controlled studies I found dealt with medicine-specific topics, like comparing paleo to other diets in terms of effect on diabetes, heart disease, or obesity. I didn't find any startling (or even strong) conclusions. As far as the general premise, I can't find any authoritative source that claims authority on what people actually ate in the paleo period. Just some educated speculation. They're pretty sure about some of the things that weren't eaten, but other key points, like the ratio of meats to plants, are presumed to have varied wildly. Almost verything we believe about was eaten comes from circumstantial evidence ... dental development, tools, cooking implements, etc.

Just to be clear, diets like the paleo diet are based entirely on speculation, not science. Even paleontologists' ideas about what humans ate during the paleolithic era are speculative (although educated). The effects of diet on paleolithic people's health, and the effects of this diet on our health vs. other diets, constitute wild, uneducated speculation. Also, please beware of doctors hawking diets in print and on the radio. An M.D. is not a nutrition researcher. Nutrition is not part of the curriculum in most medical schools. It's a title that helps people sell books.