angevin

Is this really true, though? I have heard this argument so many times but it seems untenable to me. For example, every conversation I've ever had with baking professors takes for granted that you use precise measurements based on weight, which suggests that variations in the moisture content of flour change the weight very, very little. Even if there is some variability based on moisture, it seems specious to me to claim that measuring flour by volume "is no worse than using the scale" if you're "adjusting as needed." Which means what exactly? So, you're implying that the variation is due to imprecise measuring methods, and people are just assuming it's due to humidity, etc.? Possible. I do know that when we make noodles in our manufacturing plant, the ratio of water to flour varies significantly from day to day. So much so that it takes an experienced noodle-maker on the equipment to minimize yield loss. (The sooner you get it up-and-running and steady state the better). But of course we're talking about a scale-up in the thousands of pounds, which would magnify the difference.

I use a scale at work every weekeday; on weekends I want freedom!! You guys have at it, though - great idea if your goal is precision and consistency and of course it all depends on what you're making. As for startch-based recipes like bread, spaeztle and pie crust, a lot of what determines the correct weight will depend on the moisture content of the flour and the humidity in the air. So going by volume and adjusting as needed is no worse than using the scale. We now return to your regularly scheduled program...

I hoard wine glasses - all shapes and sizes. Because, like shoes, it seems I never have the right ones for the right occasion.

I've found through consumer research that to most people the only thing that doesn't qualify as "cooking" is a complete meal that is either microwaved or popped in the oven. As long as you add something to it, using prepared foods is "cooking". Even if it's just a dollop of sour cream or a sprig of cilantro. Interesting that the other day, some coworkers and I were discussing whether we were in the minority that cooked from scratch or not. I said I was and proceeded to relate that just the night before I made fish tacos, although made from leftover red snapper that I'd grilled the night before. Then as I was telling them how I made the tacos, I realized I'd used a few prepared ingredients. I bought house made corn tortillas and salsa from the Mexican grocer. And I mixed the salsa with Hellman's mayonnaise for the sauce. Of course I sliced up my own cabbage, limes, cilantro and avocados, but this was actually my version of a quick weeknight dinner when I'm pressed for time. My coworkers totally considered that my dinner was "from scratch." What I did is what they do on weekends when they actually have time to "cook".

Yeah, true. But so? Aren’t all food preferences influenced by experiences and emotional connections to some extent? People who love circus peanuts probably are influenced close to 100% by nostalgia. For people who like oysters, maybe not as much. A one year old kid who tries an oyster for the first time isn’t influenced much at all by nostalgia, who is going merely on his genetic makeup and evolutionary biology. But when a 20 year old tries oysters for the first time, a lot of what determines his liking is based on memories – the brininess of an ocean spray, summers at the shore, tastes kinda like sushi…memories of being forced to eat slimy food, too metallic, tastes like snot…and so on. I get what you’re saying about Pat’s, but Pat’s wasn’t the cheesesteak I grew up on. It was the mom-and-pop shop cheesesteak that was more in the style of Jim’s. And cheese whiz was never an option, only american. When I first began eating Pat’s in college I saw a difference and liked it. Maybe it was the whole peer pressure thing, who knows. But whatever the reason, I LIKE the way it eats, from the bite of the meat, the chew of the roll, and how the runniness of the whiz mixes with the juices from the meat and the hot sauce. My liking of a Pat’s cheesesteak is no more based on nostalgia than your liking of La Colombe coffee. It’s a sincere taste preference, but you can’t deny that previous experience doesn’t influence your liking, both emotionally and intellectually. There is no absolute truth as to what is good tasting food and bad tasting food. Full dislosure - I've never had John's. Gotta try one SOON!

I have three: 24, 21 and 18. The oldest eats everything and anything, has been working as a server at high-end restaurants for the past several years and knows a lot. However, he doesn’t cook much; not sure why. ADD? Laziness? Doesn’t have to? The middle son eats everything except bell peppers and coconut milk. Especially loves offal and adores going out to eat, especially French. No interest whatsoever in cooking and when on his own, lives on hot dogs, frozen pizza and Captain Crunch. My youngest has been a vegetarian for the past 6 years (she’s an animal lover and since she never really enjoyed the taste of meat very much anyway, decided to give it up.) She also loves to eat - lots of fruits, vegetables and whole grains, loves seafood and Japanese (udon, sushi, miso…). She can be picky about high-fat sauces containing butter and cream, claiming they don’t make her feel good. (Yeah, she’s been brainwashed by the nutrition Nazis.) She likes to cook and can be pretty creative. All-in-all they’re pretty different from each other, but I’m really proud that all of them appreciate the joys of eating.

Pat's is my favorite for one reason only. Yeah, the steak is decent (I like a little "bite") and the roll is right on. But the reason it's gotta be Pat's for me is the hot sauce: thin, dark and spicy, self-ladled over the cheesesteak that melds perfectly with the whiz. Ketchup with a dash of hot sauce doesn't even come close.

A report on the new wave in coffee in today's Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/philly/restaurants/20110316_coffee_as_a_craft.html?page=1&c=y

Well for one, the extinction of real sushi, real fish, real food, nourishment from authentic sources. The loss is difficult to articulate, but just like the extinction of certain species on this earth, it's just hard for me to swallow that what we have now may be gone forever. It may be a stretch to speculate that the execution of artificial versions of foods will eventually cause the demise of their authentic predecessors, but if the replacement is cheaper and tastes better, it's not all that difficult to imagine. But then again, the generations that come after us won't be at any disadvantage, as they'd never know what real food was like. Again, my response is more emotional than logical. But I don't see that as being a cause to value it any less. Second, I do have concerns regarding how our bodies respond to such severe changes in what we put in them. The relatively smaller shift, from meats and fruits and veggies to the modern diet, high in processed carbs and refined sugars, is already having a detrimental effect on our overall health.

Yes, it's candy. But it certainly wouldn't be a stretch to make it taste like sushi, given the technical advancement in flavor science and texture technology. But then I would ask, where would the benefit be? To consistently have every piece taste exactly the same. Not be subject to seasonality of available fish varieties. Lower cost. "Better" , more intense, or customized "dialed-in" flavor. The disadvantages? Don't get me started...

OMG...please...no, no NO!!!

Speaking of artificial food: Kinda like the modernist cuisine version of the "Easy-Bake Oven"!

According to futurist Ray Kurzweill: "With 30 linear steps, you get to 30. With 30 steps exponentially, you get to one billion. The price-performance of computers has improved one billion times since I was a student. In 25 years, a computer as powerful as today’s smartphones will be the size of a blood cell.”

While I think our early goals would be aimed at reliably reproducing, say, the perfect Kobe steak, once accomplished, there'd be no need remain true to anything authentic and we'd drift away from tradition and down paths guided only by our whims. The end result would be dishes far removed from anything that ever existed naturally. I don't look for virtual reality to beat artificial food in the short term since we really know a lot more about mimicking meat growing processes than what makes the sense of taste work. The former is more mechanical than the latter, which includes a lot of cognitive psychology/neurology. Hmmm...maybe maybe not. With artificial intelligence, information will exand exponentially and we'll be cracking these puzzles far sooner than you think. No one thought we'd ever be able to solve the genome, and that was a few years back.

Although we already have foods that "trick" the brain into thinking we're eating real and nutritious foods - sugars, flavors, MSG - I think the virtual tasting experience will happen before we find we can synthesize food that tastes exactly like the real thing. And once we experience the ultimate meal using virtual reality, there will no longer be the need to fabricate foods.

Yes, this. Technology seems to reduce the human element. Or at least transfers it from the senses to the brain, reducing the sensuality in the creative process. Although those who embrace MC find probably find something very sensual in the scientific rigor involved.

Absolutely not, and I think this is one of the points: a computer-controlled 5-axis milling machine does not make a Michelangelo, but what could a Michelangelo with a computer-controlled 5-axis milling machine accomplish? Tools don't limit creativity; they blow the limits off of it. I love this quote and it's something I try to convey to people I know who can cook extremely well when they question the techniques. They are offended that someone can press a few buttons and produce a piece of meat that matches or exceeds what they have trained to do for many years. The point I try to make that you captured there is that imagine what they could do to further enhance the overall dish with this extra knowledge. I'm a computer programmer by trade. Imagine how silly and damaging to my future career it would be to ignore new advances in technology. Forget visual studio, I'm going to stick with my Fortan. Internet? Just a passing fad, I'll ship you my program on some 5" disks. Do programmers feel threatened when new technology arrives? Well yeah, some do but the good ones embrace it realizing that yes, it will lower the learning curve and make things easier for beginners allowing them to duplicate things I spent days on with just a few lines of code but wow, imagine what I will be able to do now. It's an exciting time in cooking, I for one am glad that I stumbled on to sous vide cooking and egullet a year or so ago so that I can be part of this rg But computer programming is inherently a product of technology. The issue here is the comfort level of removing the line that separates technology and creative expression. It's about personal preference. I perfer to listen to a piece of music by a symphony orchestra with real acoustic instruments, than a synthesized version, even if they might sound identical to the ear. Or especially if the synthesized version is even more perfect than the authentic one. Others who have embraced synthesized music find classical intruments to be woefully limiting.

I don’t see much of a “force” of traditionalists here. In fact this will probably be my final post because I’m afraid I’m not doing a very good job of representing the traditionalists. And I’m not here to convince anyone what’s right and wrong, just trying to present another perspective. My point wasn’t all about secrecy and hoarding knowledge. It was about the precision, the perfection of “processed” foods. This is something we work to achieve in the food industry and invest in methods and equipment to get there. But part of the joy, for me, in cooking at home, is the thrill of discovery. I feel a personal satisfaction when I create something outstanding with a simple chef’s knife, a cast iron skillet and good old intuition. Cooking something to 72.3°C for 18.4 seconds and having the equipment available to measure that with such precision…well, that’s just not fun. For me. I’m also not a professional chef or even a rocket scientist, just a lowly food technologist who dabbles in cooking at home (to get away from the precision and chemicals at work!). And I’m not very detail-oriented, even at work. I approach things with a big-picture mentality and leave the details to those who enjoy them. Of course at home I still use thermometers and ovens set to a certain temperature; I totally get the logic in the author’s defense. But it’s about what’s fun and what isn’t. Many find the joy of discovery in the analytical process of scientific detail – others enjoy going about it a bit differently. Again, this is not a criticism of MC, but just a comment to point out the reasons why I'm having a tough time embracing it. And then again, maybe sour grapes on my part because I’ll now be a step behind without the book and equipment.

I totally disagree regarding the analogy to Impressionism and modern art - with those the end result is different from earlier art forms, but the methods and materials used were still traditional. Going back to my earlier post, I think the better analogy is graphic design, creating art using computer imaging and photoshopping. Or with music, creating it with the use of the synthsizer rather than orchestral instruments.

Point taken. Yeah, I guess I'm forgetting that it's just a cookbook, not a way of life!

“The concept of having process control rather than the magic of a chef's intuitive / experiential knowledge of when to take something off the grill bothered him greatly…” I think that’s part of my problem too. I read the tip on how using more oil results in a crispier, less oily fried whatever, and thought – yeah, I found that out through years of experience, through trial and error. I got the frying thing down perfectly, and the feeling of accomplishment that follows is exhilarating. And what this book does is to show that anyone with enough money to buy the book and the with right expensive gadgets, with a scientific mind, an analytical bent and a bit of practice can be an accomplished cook, no matter the skill level or years of experience. And logically, one might say, so? That’s a good thing – kind of evens the playing field. And maybe even leaves more room for the creative process now that the basics are nailed down. But I feel like it takes all the nostalgia and romance out of the process. We may have had a grandmother who just knew how to make food taste soooo good. It was intuitive; and we could “taste the love”. And just as some of the most beautiful women are those who aren’t perfect, some of the most satisfying dishes are those that have the mark of individuality. Perfection is boring, uninspiring. Take that now-famous hamburger, all of the components made with such precision. So perfect, so... processed. Where’s the soul in modernist cuisine?

??? Ooookay... I admit my first thought was 'WHAT?! Don't they have special clubs for that? I don't mean dinner, clubs, either...' I'm not seeing this statement in its original context, and have no way of knowing precisely how the word 'submission' was intended, but although I'm perfectly willing to do my homework on the restaurant beforehand, repect the efforts of the kitchen and dining-room staff, and be politepolitepolite if it kills me, submission seems out of place. If you aren't actively engaged in the dining experience, but instead submit to it, I think you lose out on part of what the chef has done, you miss the elements of dialogue, of exploration. Even if you go to a restaurant that offers a single, set menu on any given night, the decision to eat there is an active one. My mind boggles a bit at the idea that I might have to consider and consent to a tacit power dynamic between diner and food/chef, which, to be honest, goes a bit beyond my idea of 'dining experience', but I imagine everyone feels differently about this, and I suppose that's entering a whole philosophical area related to how one approaches food, which might be considered a bit off-topic. I get the submission thing. It certainly doesn’t mean you’re not engaged and it doesn’t mean there’s no room for dialogue. But I love the act of totally relinquishing control; there’s something exciting and sensual about having someone not only cook for you, but decide what you want, what you’d enjoy. Which is why I always go for the chef’s tasting if offered. Or even if it’s not on the menu, I sometimes ask if it’s possible to just have the chef “take care of me”. But the act of submission involves trust. Aside from specific allergies and severe dislikes, the people who go overboard with special requests just don’t trust others preparing their food for them. And I say “their loss.”

I'd go one step further and say that many of us are the ideal readers for this project, and as such it feels like a dream come true. It is certainly appropriate to imagine other readers who, for perfectly legitimate reasons, don't feel the same way. I’ve been following the modernist cuisine threads on-and-off and do find it all pretty fascinating. And such a thrill to have the author on line and engaged in discussion with us. But at the risk of coming off as a little old lady shaking her cane in the air at newfangled methods, I’ll admit to having some reservations about the whole concept of manipulating food so extensively. I realize that many of the ingredients and techniques we think of as part of traditional gourmet cooking are ingredients that have been already highly manipulated and processed to produce something revelatory. Like bread, wine and cheese, among other things. So I get the argument that modernist cuisine is just taking that same philosophy and applying it in new and unique ways. And yeah, it looks really cool, the techniques are astoundingly interesting and I know some of it is downright delicious, delighting the eye as well as the palate. However, I work as a product developer for a major food company, and something about it all just rubs me the wrong way. Don’t get me wrong, I know mass-produced, cost-reduced factory-made food for the masses is in an entirely different league than genius chefs turning out brilliant creations for high end restaurants. But they’re using the same tools. For instance, I have, at my disposal, hundreds of flavors from flavor scientists who are world-renown experts in their field; some of these would knock your socks off in intensity and quality. Although I’m tempted to sneak a few of the more outstanding examples home to add to my own cooking (Trust me, I’d be a rock star in the eyes of my family if served a Thanksgiving gravy that had a cleverly concocted blend of a great caramelized onion flavor, the most perfectly intense roasted top note, a savory enhancer perhaps.), I couldn’t do it. To me, that’s not cooking. And then I realize that these flavors are tools that, with the right equipment, the highly skilled modernist cook could possibly create in their own home (or restaurant). In fact, the picture of the modernist’s kitchen looks horrifyingly similar to our pilot plant here at work! So it feels right to use these tools as long as I invest in the equipment, learn the science and techniques and produce them myself. But not right if I take what’s already out there in the food industry, add a splash or two, and use them to elevate my own cooking to a higher level? In other words, where is the line drawn? Maybe it shouldn’t be? And what’s next? The virtual meal that has the ability to far surpass the real life experience? I don’t want foie gras that looks like a cherry. Or olive oil gummy worms. Yeah, they’re really interesting and I can appreciate the skill it took in their creation, but it all just seems too gimmicky for me. Not to mention that many of the ingredients referenced in the book are things we’ve been using for years here at work that consumers balk at on our labels. The world is being turned upside down! These are just some nagging thoughts regarding the intersection of technology and art and not necessarily a criticism. A good analogy might be hand painted art vs photo shopped pictures. Both use the creative process and both might be equally pleasing to the eye. And even traditional oil painting utilizes some chemistry in the manufacture of the oil-based pigments. But I tend to have a greater appreciation for the cruder, more soulful, old-fashioned methods and the product they create. Which is ironic given my food science background. Or maybe it’s my background that has me stubbornly insist on drawing that arbitrary line that separates the culinary arts from food technology.

When you're strong enough to get over it and build that immune system. When I was in high school, I remember being sick a lot. The flu, colds, stomach viruses. Having weathered those few years, I've been healthy as a horse ever since. I still get the occasional cold and all, but it rarely causes me to miss work or anything. My daughter had a liver transplant when she was six. Her transplant team noted that it was a good thing she attended day care beforehand, as she already had a lot of stuff that would have been serious with her compromised immune system.

Well, ok. If you're in the hospital, chances are you're sick and your immune sytem is in a weakened state. So that's probably not a good time to catch something.