paulraphael

11 batches of bread a day definitely sounds like hobart territory! That's really professional use. The KA can do it, but like you said, it probably won't inspire much confidence. It was designed with the expectation of having more time to cool down between batches than it's going to get when you're running big bread batches back to back. It was designed to last a long time under serious household use, but it sounds like you're doing ten times more than that.

It's good to keep in mind that scientific knowledge is provisional, but you can take it too far. It's easy to throw up your arms and say "knowledge is always changing, so i don't need any of it!" In fact, studies weren't negated. Generalizations based on interpretations of old studies were negated. The reason is that the old studies were so vague .. they didn't often enough distinguish between one kind of fat and another, or between the fat that was being studied and others that happened to coexist in the diets of the subjects. There's still a lot left to be learned ... the exact mechanisms of the link between trans fats and CHD, what other nutrients work with or against this process, other factors that haven't been considered, etc.. But the current state of the research is sophisticated enough that we're unlikely to discover that trans fats actually aren't bad. The evidence that they're worse than other fats is just too thorough and compelling. Einstein showed that Newton's laws actually needed to be radically revised ... but apples didn't suddenly start falling up.

I think the diffference is that the trans fat is invisible. Anyone who spends more a minute a year thinking about it knows that the bowling ball-sized cheeseburger is bad for them. They're simply making a choice to eat it anyway. But when I eat at a cafe, I have no way of knowing if what I'm eating is made with butter or with trans fat-laden shortening. I have no expectation of either being health food, but evidence points to the trans fat version being a lot worse (I personally think it's likely to taste worse, too, but that's a different conversation). The other law that was just passed in NYC is about labelling, actually. Fast food restaurants need to have nutritional information posted someplace visible. Most people won't care, but it's a reminder to everyone, and it will make it a bit easier for people to make informed choices. I realize that trans fats occur in nature. Those trans fats aren't being banned. They also tend to exist in much smaller quantities than in the artificial substitues. I just bought some french butter that lists 1/2 gram trans fats per serving. Not sure what's in a comparable amount of shortening, but I suspect it's significant. Also, I should add that I don't think this is a cut and dry issue. Matters of policy never are. But I don't think it's an arbitrary decision, either. The city chose to draw a line somewhere, and the distinction implied by that line is one that's well supported scientifically. Whether or not you think it's any of the government's business at all is a different story.

Haha, yes, I meant "don't" ... so annoying to say the exact opposite of what you're trying to say. I was talking about the same study that you mentioned, that found low incidence of heart disease among Inuits. The French seem like an anomaly because most older studies ignored that regional diets high in saturated fat tend to also be high in hydrogenated oils. The French and the Inuits provide interesting models because their diets are high in the saturated fats but not the trans fats. I'll have to go back and see where my information on China came from. If I'm wrong I apologise for the misinformation. None of these broad population-based studies is controlled for genetic differences, but fow whatever reasons the researchers don't seem to think this is a major factor. In general, recent research, focussed on distinguishing between different fatty acids, supports that trans fats are a more potent culprit in CHD. Here's a metastudy published this year: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum

Those tend to be abstracts to metastudies, where a researcher compiles and analyses the results of many other studies, trials, etc. Well, in the case of popular journalism on the topic, I always look for references and go straight to the source. The Times is head and shoulders above most papers on these things, but I find their journalists get lazy a lot of the time in their interpretations of the studies, or in their ability to find the most current studies. They're simply ten years behind the current state of research if they think trans fats are only on par with saturated fats in their effect on cardiac health. Yes, most of the damning research is from the last five or six years. I wouldn't give weight to a 1997 study without looking at what's come since. Also, remember that the American Heart Association, like the FDA is a political body, and so it's reports are connected to policy and not just science. You'll have better luck getting to the bottom of things by going straight to the scientific journals. Even if you can only access the abstracts, you'll get more relevent information than you will out of a typical newspaper article. I only linked to the first handfull of studies that I found. If you want to dig deeper, and even explore some contradictory viewpoints (you'll always find something) I suggest wiling away some time on pub med.

Right, and there is also a mountain of evidence linking saturated fat to heart disease ← Is there really a "mountain" of evidence linking trans fats to heart disease? While there have been a few studies, I wouldn't characterize the evidence as anything near mountainous -- or near conclusive. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_DocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_DocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_DocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_DocSum This is the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of published studies in peer reviewed journals that come to similar conclusions. It's hard to find this kind of consensus on any nutritional topic.

The plastic gear on the KA mixers is what's called a sacrificial gear ... it's designed to break if the machine is overloaded, to protect the much more expensive motor. Contrary to popular internet rumor, the KAs have used a sacrificial plastic gear singe hobart introduced them decades ago. It's not the most elegant solution to the problem, but it's a cost effective one. They replaced the plastic gear with a metal one on the pro (bowl lift) models several years ago, and switched to a thermal shutoff to protect the motor. More elegant, but also more expensive.

Wattage tells you how much power the machine draws from the wall. It tells you nothing about about the durability, the heat diispersion, or the ability to generate torque at the low speeds you need for kneading dough. Pro machines are rated in horsepower, which is about the actual output power. This makes much more sense, but still tells you nothing about torque or durability or cooling. The main reasons the pro machines like the Hobarts kick ass is that they have a geared transmission. Like a car. At low speeds you use a low gear, which gives you more torque. You can run the engine at high speed (where it actually generates the most power) while the beater turns slowly. It makes little difference to have a 700 watt mixer if has electronic spped control (no gears), if it's nowhere near 700 watts at kneading speeds, if it has very little low-speed torque, and if it has poor heat dissipation under load. FWIW, here's a pretty good review at consumersearch.com... http://www.consumersearch.com/www/kitchen/mixers/index.html

Right, and there is also a mountain of evidence linking saturated fat to heart disease, and sat fat happens to constitute a much higher proportion of our fat intake than does transfats. So, shouldn't we ban butter in favor of trans-fat-free shortening? ← It's not that black and white. Saturated fats are a natural part of the human diet, as they have been for millenia, and in moderation do not appear to be a major problem. The Inuit tribe eats a diet consisting largely of saturated fat and they don't have lower rates of heart disease than Americans. The French eat butter and lard and goose fat in impressive quantities and they also don't have our high rates of heart disease (although that appears to be changing, along with the rate of obesity, now that our fast food chains are infiltrating). Meanwhile, China has a very high rate of heart disease, and fairly low saturated fat intake. As early as fifteen years ago researchers were establishing a link between heart disease in china and partially hydrogenated oils. You could make a case that saturated fats aren't great, but you could just as easily make a case that trans fats have no redeeeming qualities whatsoever, outside of the convenience they provide for processed food manufacturers (and lazy chefs).

Well, fois gras is an ethics issue, not a health issue, so it's not the same thing. As far as sugar and white flour doing horrible things, I have yet to see any clinical evidence of them being the villains that certain health food communities make them out to be. And I've done a lot of searches through orignal research on Pub Med looking for it. On the other hand, there are mountains of evidence linking trans fats to heart disease. In general I've believed the axiom that there are no bad foods, only bad diets ... but trans fats call this into question. They really appear to be as bad as the hype suggests.

Aparently even some acclaimed chefs in NYC are upset about this ... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/nyregion/11fat.html Does it strike anyone else as odd that experienced chefs think they need crisco to make good pastry? I'd be embarassed to admit it, and I'm not even a pro. I find shortening based crusts to be so bland that I don't care what the texture is. And it seems like a simple matter of skill to produce a pretty flaky crust with pure butter (especially with good butter). If you still can't get the texture you want, there are so many possibilities: trans fat-free shortening, leaf lard, suet, goose fat, or if you're really obsessed with flakiness, just make the damn thing with puff pastry. Is there anyone who really prefers a shortening based tart shell to a (skillfully made) butter one?

I wouldn't get seduced by wattage. The Hobart N5 is significantly lower wattage than the top end Kithchenaids, Vikings, and Delonghis, but is effectively much more powerful and will outlast all of them, especially with pro level use. It will also cost much more. If you really need professional quality, you need to shell out the dollars. For anything less than continuous heavy use (like making multiple batches of dough back to back every day) my money is on the top end kitchenaid. There are some nice things about the Delonghi, but the trouble is that service is nonexistant, at least in the U.S.. If it breaks (and they do break ... delonghi has its quality control issues just like KA), you're in for an epic. I know less about Viking ... they seem to have less of a track record than the others. I'm skeptical of them in general, based on the price/performance of their other products. KA has the best service service network and policies of all of them. Remember that you'll have an easy time breaking ANY mixer, even a floor-standing hobart that's as big as a hot tub. You have to pay attention to capacities, to how the motor sounds, and to common sense. Most mixers will also benefit from a gentle break-in period, that lets you warm the grease in the transmission and get it flowing everywhere it needs to go, before you really crank on the thing. Kitchenaid doesn't acknowledge this (they don't want to scare you away) but if you check out the forums at kitchenaid.com you'll find some engineering types who give their educated opinions.

Has there been any discussion of the theory behind no-knead techniques? I'm assuming that the very long proof combined with the high hydration is just allowing the gluten to form on its own, but I'm wondering if anyone has studied it. It seems similar to the pain a l'ancienne technique that Peter Reinhart writes about, although instead of depending on refrigeration it uses tiiny quantities of yeast. Any thoughts on this? Advantages/disadvantages vs. other delayed fermentation techniques?

if you're worried about uneven heating (from being close to the sides, etc.) you can always turn them and shuffle them around two or three times over the course of cooking. Kind of a nuissance, but it can solve the problems. I also recommend putting a doubled layer of foil over the breasts for the first 10 or 15 minutes. This eliminates all worries of the breasts getting overdone while the dark meat cooks. Helps with nice even browning, too. I'm indebted to James Peterson for that technique.

This is an interesting subject ... I've always wondered how people managed with this kind of thing. As a purely amateur cook and baker, I'm baffled by how anyone can make money unless they're working in a real production environment, cranking things out in multiples. Even then, it would seem like affter ingredients get paid for, the hourly wage would be ridiculous. I'm not even considering overhead. Just the other day I made a couple of tarts. They turned out pretty well ... better than most of the professionally baked tarts I've had. but when I factor in the cost of ingredients, and pay myself a reasonable wage, I'd have to charge around $40 each, wholesale! This ignores overhead, and also ignores that no one is going to pay that much for a tart. What kind of hourly wage do good bakers expect to earn?

I'd actually be concerned with things burning in the disposable pan. at the very least I'd set it on a baking sheet to provide a little more heat diffusion on the bottom. But you might have something sittting around already that would work better than that anyhow. A pyrex baking dish? a metal or stoneware casserole? a jelly roll pan? None of these can be deglazed, unfortunately. Even the cast iron skillet is sketchy for this (you might take the seasoning right off of it, which will annoy you, and make a sauce that tastes vaguely like a burnt fossil of everything you've ever cooked in there. But most things are better than those disposable pans.

I'm much less concerned with the texture of the bottome of the chicken (which I just use for stock making anyhow) than I am with keeping my pan drippings from burning. I always make some kind of pan sauce when I roast, because those drippings are so flavorful. Having the bottom of the pan covered with bird/veggies keeps it from getting too hot. Traditional roasting (on a spit) allowed for free air around the meat because the pan for the drippings was down by the embers in a place much cooler than the spit itself. But an oven doesn't afford that luxury. I gladly sacrifice a crisp bottom in the name of my jus.

I just think splattering is a part of roasting. I put the chickens on a bed of coarsely chopped onions (or anything else), and roast at 500 degrees. It splatters, sizzles, pops, and sometimes sets off smoke alarms. But the chicken is soooo good!

I've found a siginificant time increase when doing two birds, but it may have to do with the pans I'm using as much as with the number of birds. Doing one chicken I use a skillet, which is about perfect size, and has nice low sides that stay out of the way of air flow. I find it harder to manage two skillets and their long handles in the oven at once, so for two birds I've used a big clad metal roasting pan that has higher sides. I find time is close to 50% longer and browning is much less even. I think the ideal way to do it would be with two small pans that you can get fairly close to the center of the oven, but still have some air flow between them. If you have the pans and they'll fit, this would probably cook two birds in close to the same time as one.

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I made an apple tart last night and put some of these ideas to use. Worked well (though apple is less challenging than a soupier custard based tart). my plan now includes 1) prebaking and final baking with the tart pan right on a hot stone on the bottom rack of the oven 2) prebaking thoroughly, and using a ring of foil for the last few minutes to keep the rim from getting overdone 3) precooking the filling thoroughly to set it up and give it less chance to soak into the shell. for pumpkin I plan to try the cook's illustrated order of operations (cooking the pumpkin/spices, then adding milk and cream and bringing to simmer, then mixing in the eggs).

I've worked with wed doughs ... this was ridiculous. it was like glue. flour was helpless against its wrath. i thought it was trying to kill me. I'm definitely going to try this again, with a bit less water. is there any chance the cold temperatures in my house played a part in this? the yeast seemed pretty active after 24 hours so i figured things were going ok until i tried to fold it.

How cool is it supposed to be before cutting into it? It was probably below 60 degrees, because that's how cold my loft is. How did you improve your dough? Less water? Thanks!

alright, my first attempt at this was a disaster. my first ever bread disaster. the dough was so slack, so sticky, so disgusting, that i felt like i was in a grade B sci-fi horror movie. it was unhandleable. stuck to everything, especially me. when i finally threw it off of me and emptied my revolver into it ... alright, i'm exagerating. but it was bad. i'm wondering if temperature could be an issue. my place is cold in the winter. 55 to 60 degrees. i compensated for this letting it ferment longer. at 24 hours, it looked nice and bubbly, so i figured it was ready to go. aparently not. i mixed it acording to the original recipe, using pilsbury bread flower. any thoughts? would more time have helped? i was so happy about this until five minutes ago.

Technically, since most butters are only 80% fat and 17% water, 3 oz of butter and 1.5 oz of water equals 2.4 oz of fat and 2 oz of water. In order to get the ratios to 3:2:1 you would need 4.5 oz of flour, 3.75 oz of butter, and 0.86 oz of water. ← That's a good point. I've been using butters that way for a little while .. considering them 80% fat (or 85% for the good stuff, which does make better pastry), but i've never seen anything written about it. I have not compensated for the water in the butter by reducing the added water. it just seems to take so long for the water to get liberated from the butter, that it isn't available effect the handling of the dough.