slkinsey

For the record, I don't write, nor have I ever written reviews of anything. Really? That seems a little naive about these businesses. I'm not talking about the one Bruce performance out in the Meadowlands. These are all ongoing businesses. Tell that to the Metropolitan Opera and its dozen or so performances of La bohème every season (the premiere of which is reviewed every year in the NY Times). Tell that to the producers of Cats, which ran for over 6,000 performances and more than 20 years on Broadway -- that's longer than most restaurants, and the "menu" never changed! Tell that the producers of any Broadway show, all of which are designed to run 8 performances a week so long as they can continue filling the house. Tell that to the Atlanta Falcons in the wake of the Michael Vick dogfighting controversy, or the New York Knicks in the wake of yet another forgettable season. Also, consider that by and large, the restaurant critic is reviewing between one and three "performances" or "games" by the restaurant. The argument, by the way, is not that the situations are directly parallel. But rather that writers in these other fields have equally, if not more powerful reasons to be influenced -- and yet they seem to do pretty well. You think that a single comped meal at a restaurant is going to influence a food writer to go easy on a restaurant more than a season's worth of free seats to the local opera, invitations to the star-filled special events, arranged interviews with international stars appearing in company productions, etc. is going to influence a music critic to go easy on the new production of Rigoletto? Really? You're going to go with that? And yet, somehow, negative opera reviews happen all the time. What does this mean? Does it mean that professional live opera reviewers are just better and more ethical as a whole than their counterparts in the food world? Are some music critics influenced by these things? Sure, of course they are. Some food writers who dine out on the company dime may be influenced by the fact that they want to screw the good-looking celebrity chef. What's that got to do with the price of tea? There are good, ethical writers who try to do the best they can, and there are bad, unethical writers who don't. Among the food writers (both online and in print) upon whose work I rely, I'd say that those who dine (supposedly) anonymously and on the company dime are, as a whole, pretty low on my list. Perhaps. But perhaps I just don't think that the guy writing about the merits of the linguini con vongole they're serving at Luigi's, however philosophically informed, is turning out stuff in the same league with Immanuel Kant (or Stendhal, who did the odd bit of criticism). So, if I get this right: Your objection to food writers accepting comped meals is not that you think the fact of the comp would necessarily influence the writers' opinions (any more than other things might), but because you don't think it looks good?

I don't really believe that there is a principle originating inside the critic and compelling him to critique the work of others. I'm happy that there are critics like you out there, but I'd bet almost anything that you are among an infinitesimally small number of restaurant critics who think about their craft this way.

This seems to be getting pretty heavily into the realm of philosophy, if you're saying that the primary thing that makes comping matter so much more in restaurant reviewing than all these other fields is that you digest the food and make it "part of you." Many forms of criticism (certainly criticism of any performing art) involve applying analysis to various physical sensations. In the case of the opera reviewer, the primary sensations are aural and visual (although there are certainly other components, such as the physical sensation of certan powerful tones, etc.) In the case of the food critic, the primary sensations are taste, smell and those associated with digestion. Either way, I don't understand how the fact of digestion tips the balance one way or the other (unless the writer is relying upon the restaurant comps for physical subsistence he otherwise couldn't afford).

Stevia, is the easiest example, with extracts of that herb having up to 300 times greater perceived sweetness than sugar. As far as perceived sweetness in normal culinary herbs, licorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra) is one of the sweetest. I find articles which claim it is perceived as up to 50 times as sweet as sugar. Right. So, these are chemicals that are actual sweeteners contained within the plant. Stevia is an interesting example, but seems to be unique in having that amount of sweetening power in the unprocessed plant. I wonder whether other herbs could add enough non-sugar sweeteners to a liqueur to affect the actual sweetness of a liqueur when one considers the amount of sugar already in there. For example, the sweet chemical in licorice is glycyrrhizin. And, while glycyrrhizin may be 30 to 50 times sweeter than sucrose, the highest concentration is in the bark and is only 4% (and it hydrolyses to a non-sweet form). With respect to St. Germain, since elderflower doesn't appear to have any non-sugar sweetening chemicals like the glycyrrhizin in licorice or the glycosides in stevia that could cause an increase in actual sweetness, the question would be whether or not there is some chemical in elderflower that causes an increase in perceived sweetness. I have my doubts about that, however.

Hmm. I wonder about that. Could you provide a bit more information? Certainly things such as color, temperature and viscosity affect perceived sweetness. I wonder whether, and to what extent substances in things like mint or other herbal flavors increase the perceived sweetness of something, rather than generally being associated with sweetness in our minds.

Right. I'm with you. All of these "muddling substitutions" with respect to fresh herbs (we also muddle citrus and other fruits) strike me as either unacceptably inferior to actual muddling, considerably more trouble than actual muddling, or most often, both. Making a mint syrup, for example, seems both more trouble and produces an inferior result compared to simply muddling the mint.

It used to be the case that all the mint drinks I made were either not shaken or sufficiently strongly flavored to mitigate any bad effects of hard shaking (the Juniperotivo comes to mind). As a result, it was my practice to shake hard with big ice and double-strain through a fine strainer. At some point, I started making some more subtly flavored shaken mint cocktails, and quickly learned what can result from overworking the mint: bitter, brackish flavors and an off-brown colored drink. Most drinks with overworked mint need extra sweetness, richness, tartness or flavor to compensate. The Juniperotivo has all four in spades, but usually the main compensation is sweetness -- hence, the super-sweet Julep. These days, if the cocktail calls for mint shaken with the ice, I'm more likely to give the mint a few taps with a muddler and roll the drink with cracked ice between two large metal mixing tins. Maybe one day I'll be able to toss it in an arc from one tin to the other old-school style. Ada, a few thoughts: First, you can use practically anything for muddling. I've seen video of someone making good use of the wooden handle of a potato masher. Also, if you like making cocktails, why not pick up a muddler? They can be had quite inexpensively. Second, and with all due respect to your bartending son, non-cocktailian bartenders take all kinds of shortcuts all the time. Just because the people at his bar are shaking the heck out of their Mojitos doesn't mean it's a good idea. I would argue that it's not a good idea, and actually don't quite understand why they would be shaking a Mojito anyway. What it is, most likely, is easier and faster than gently muddling and building the drink in the glass. That's all good and well if you're working in a place that does tons of volume and where people the customers aren't expecting the pinacle of refined mixology, but there's no reason you shouldn't do better at home. HungryChris: IMO mint syrup tastes not right. Definitely no substitute for fresh mint, and it degrades too rapidly to be practical. I don't want a cocktail made with week-old mint syrup. (Edited to fix typos)

There was an interesting study that was published over the summer, which I believe has some relevance to various forks in this discussion. More or less, what the study showed is that weight gain (specifically, obesity) is influenced by social ties. To put it in layman's terms, this says that if you hang around with people who are overweight, you are more likely to become overweight yourself. By extension, one might suggest that if you hang around with a bunch of people who engage in or glorify behaviors that lead one to become overweight, you are more likely to engage in these behaviors and become overweight yourself. Here is the abstract:

Pacific Organic almond milk contains: Organic Almond Base (Filtered Water, Organic Almonds), Organic Rice Starch, Sea Salt, Organic Vanilla, Natural Flavor, Carrageenan, Riboflavin (B2), Vitamin A Palmitate, Vitamin D2. Could work great though. Only one way to find out! For what it's worth, personally I don't think that simply shaking up a 1:1 simple syrup with POM makes a particularly good grenadine (my process is right around as much trouble as making orgeat from scratch, and I think results in a far superior grenadine). But making pomegranate juice from fresh pomegranate is considerably more difficult and time consuming than making almond milk, so I think using POM is a reasonable compromise. If it were easy to juice pomegranates and the difference were notable, I'd do that over using POM.

Worth a try, I suppose. But I have to wonder whether it would be nearly as good/concentrated/silky as making it yourself -- which is already very little trouble. Also, I assume that premade almond milk normally has additives and is pasteurized.

I suppose one should point out that orgeat can be made fairly inexpensively. The Art of Drink formula most of us seem to be basing our methods around results in something like a liter of orgeat! This is a lot of orgeat unless you are a professional bartender or a major tiki fanatic. I would suggest that a decent amount for a home user would be something like this: Ingredients 150 grams blanched almonds [or other nut] 1 blanched apricot kernel (optional) 250 ml water 200 grams table sugar 30 ml brandy 1-5 drops of orange flower water or rose flower water to taste (optional) Process Soak solids in ample water for 30 minutes Discard water and grind nuts in food processor to a medium-fine paste. Add water to processor towards the end Let mixture steep 1-2 hours Place a thin tea towel or several layers of cheese into a strainer and pour mixture through cloth, reserving liquid. Twist and squeeze solids in cloth to extract maximum liquid. (Optional) Return solids to liquids for an additional hour and repeat straining and squeezing. (Optional) Repeat one additional time. Add strained nut milk to saucepan with sugar and heat, stirring constantly, until sugar is disolved. Optionally, dissolve sugar in some percentage of the strained nut milk and then combine after the heated mixture has cooled sufficiently. Once sweetened nut milk has cooled sufficiently, add optional orange flower water, rose flower water or other flavoring; add brandy for stabilization and bottle. Keep under refrigeration This makes a much more managable amount of orgeat, and if you decide to skip one or two of the extra squeezing steps, the whole thing could be ready to go in around an hour and a half.

I just did the same thing I do to get the excess moisture out of blanched greens I'm going to saute: I put a thin tea-towel into a strainer, dumped the nut and nut-milk into the tea towel, then gathered up the ends and twisted while squeezing out the rest of the liquid. No need for a special bag.

They're clearly taking very good care of you. And I have to believe that part of the reason you go there, whether consciously or not, as often as you do is because they do take good care of you. The question is whether, as a Momofuku-brand regular, you will ever become more than a "few times a year" diner at Ko if it proves to be a serious hassle for you to obtain reservations there (especially reservations for yourself plus a date). If they're doing 168 covers a week times 52 weeks a year, that's approximately 8,700 covers a year. I don't see them filling a substantial percentage of 8,700 with rare visits by regulars at Ssam Bar and Noodle Bar. Even if every Ssam Bar and Noodle Bar regular visited Ko six times a year, mathematics suggests that they won't fill a substantial percentage of 8,700. This suggests that Ko's long-term post-buzz commercial viability will depend on either: (a) Cultivating Momofuku Ko regulars, which means some kind of perking that is meaningful to regulars (I would suggest that the current incarnation of the reservations system will make it difficult to become a regular); or (b) the buzz for Ko remains strong enough that they are able to maintain a profitably filled house without really having many regulars. The other option is that they stick with the system, eventually the buzz dies down and seats become easy enough to get that regulars can snag seats through the system with relative ease. This, I have to imagine, will lead to a period of time that will be viewed by fans and regulars as a Golden Age, but will have somewhat shaky profitability for the restaurant -- which will either change or close.

This is important, I think. BMI is important to epidemiology because it's easy to assess without doing a lot of stress tests and the like, and across large populations a certain BMI does tend to correspond to a certain level of fitness as well. But the problem with epidemiological studies and applying the conclusions on the individual level is that individuals are... well, individual. I know plenty of people with a BMI that makes them ostensibly more "healthy" and "fit" than I. But I live in NYC and walk all over the place. I've also got a big "opera singer's ribcage" that makes me naturally heavier than someone with a slight frame. Put me up against many or even most of the people my age who are thinner than I with a "better" BMI, and I can walk longer and faster, have more strength, better blood pressure, will kick their asses on a stress test, etc. This is true of most of my "higher BMI" friends in New York, because we walk a lot more than the average suburbanite. There are different kinds of "thin" and different kinds of "fat" (there are plenty of people out there who might be described as "skinny fat people") and it's not clear to me that, on an individual basis, BMI is the end-all, be-all determining risk factor. A "fat" person who has good blood pressure, heart rate and cholesterol levels and does well on a stress test, etc. may very well outlive that skinny guy down the block.

Just made a recipe of orgeat using marcona almonds and the Art of Drink recipe previously linked. Easy to do in one evening, and as others have observed the difference is huge. What a silky mouthfeel! Even better, though, was the recipe I made up alongside it using pistachios instead of almonds. Pistacheat? Pistacchiata?

If I may, I think some of the current disagreement isn't disagreement, but rather stems from insufficent recognition and acknowledgment of a crappy quotation in the original article: I assume that what you were responding to in saying this was something along the lines of: "What about the diabetes epidemic and the huge increase in diabetes we're seeing these days?" I agree that there is convincing evidence that the "diabetes epidemic" -- the dramatic increase in diagnoses of diabetes and related disorders over the last 40 -- is, for the most part, a result of increasing diagnosis rather than increasing incidence. In this sense could be described as a "hoax," since I think most people assume that incidence has dramatically grown over the latter 20C. Your quote, followed by the statement that you think it's overdiagnosed (implying that many people are being diagnosed with diabetes who don't really suffer from this disorder -- for which I think there is not so much support) creates the impression that you think diabetes itself has become a "hoax" because doctors are telling everyone they have diabetes when really they don't. I gather that this is not really your viewpoint.

Wouldn't Perlow be an example of an undiagnosed case of diabetes? Dude thinks he's healthy, starts feeling crummy, talks to a doctor who says "Surprise, your 400 pound self has diabetes!". How many people like that are walking around under the impression that everything is fine? Perlow has been diagnosed. One can look at a the diagnosis of someone at a certain stage of diabetes and, with the appropriate medical expertise, reasonably say, "this guy has had diabetes for X amount of time, and it should have been diagnosed already." During the time between when it should have been diagnosed and the time it was diagnosed, he was "undiagnosed." One can make reasonable assumptions and projections about the population to come up at a percentage of "people with undiagnosed diabetes." Of course, I suppose there are various meanings of "underdiagnosed." What I have outlined above would be one way of describing "underdiagnosis" -- that there is a X number of people who should be diagnosed with diabetes but aren't. One would like to reduce the value of X to the greatest extent possible. Whether they have visited a doctor and been tested or not is irrelevant with respect to this meaning. A visit to the doctor that should have resulted in a diagnosis of diabetes but didn't would be a misdiagnosis. Another way of looking at it would be, there are people who have tests and are revealed to have a certain kind of blood sugar response. Some people light look at those results and diagnose "not diabetes." If one is making the argument that people with that certain kind of blood sugar response should be diagnosed as "diabetes" but aren't -- that would constitute "underdiagnosis." Similarly, one can take the opposite viewpoint: If the same population is given the diagnosis of "diabetes" and one is making the argument that they shouldn't be -- that would constitute "overdiagnosis." Presumably one would need to have the appropriate medical background, or access to the same, in order to take either position.

A few things to point out: First, while these articles you have cited tend to support the notion that predisposition to a certain range of weight is largely genetically-mediated (something with which I agree) they do not speak to the data showing that certain health issues are strongly associated with being above a certain weight (perhaps better described as "being above a certain amount of fatness," since high weights can sometimes be associated with large muscle mass). This raises certain issues. For example, plenty of people have reason to believe that they may be genetically predisposed to have certain medical issues in life. Perhaps a close relative or two has developed diabetes or, in my case, heart troubles. That person can then, hopefully, try to mitigate against those genetic predispositions to the greatest extent practicable. Hopefully one doesn't simply just thow hands in the air and declare, "well, I guess I'll get horrible diabetes and have my feet amputated by the time I'm 60" or "nothing I can do about it -- I've got a fatal heart attack waiting for me in my mid-50s." Mitigating against these genetic predispositions can be difficult and, of course, all the mitigating in the world doesn't mean you won't develop some form of diabetes or have to get an arterial stent somewhere down the line. So, it may be constant and life-long work to regulate one's weight downward, but people do accomplish it. I know any number of people who have lost in the range of 20-30 pounds and kept the weight off more or less permanently. I've made relatively minor adjustments to my diet and lifestyle that have resulted in my weight centering around 12 pounds below where it had previously been (interestingly, and in support of a premise of the article, one of these adjustments has been a reduction in the frequency and extent to which in indulge in "foodie gluttony"). Considering the health and longevity issues associated with a "certain level of fatness," I don't think I'd be comfortable with simply saying "it's genetics" and leaving it there. I'm a pretty big guy already, but if I ate everything I wanted to eat I could easily be 50 pounds heavier. Second, the Friedman articles,and particularly the parts you quoted, seem to be centered on "how fat the fat people are" rather than "how many people are fat." This is important, in my opinion. An "in-between" passage missing from your quote seems crucial to me: "In 1991, 23 percent of Americans fell into the obese category; now 31 percent do, a more than 30 percent increase." Considering that entry into the obese category is gained by crossing a thresdhold weight (or BMI), I'm not sure how this number could be skewed by a drastic increase in the weight of the "most obese" people in the same period. Rather, it says to me that a substantially greater portion of our population is now across the threshhold weight or BMI compared to 1991. And that is a very short period of time! How about we compare today's percentage to the percentage in 1971? I can tell you that, in my elementary school in the 70s, there were around one to two "fat kids" per grade of around 100 (2%). All you have to do is walk by the school to see that today's figure is at least 30% -- and it's not like we were working in the fields all afternoon when I was a kid. With all due respect, and not speaking to whether anything is or is nor underdiagnosed, I don't think this is what is meant by a "logical impossibility." A statement that something is underdiagnosed (meaning that more people have the condition than are disgnosed with the condition) may be difficult or perhaps impossible to prove, but it is not a "logical impossibility." I would suggest that applying, or seeming to apply rules of logic is not appropriate in this case. One can have very strong reasons to say that a certain condition is underdiagnosed today. Certainly diabetes has historically been underdiagnosed. This is one reason why many people (myself included) don't believe that we are seing a huge explosion in diabetes. Rather, what we are seing is increased diagnosis. It may be true that, as Steven asserts, it is being overdiagnosed. Or it may be true that, as others assert, it is still underdiagnosed. The rules of logic, however, aren't relevant to a discussion of either viewpoint. ETA: "Underdiagnosis" is discussed all the time in medical research. For example, the researchers take a look at the rate at which "hypertension" is diagnosed in a medical clinic. Then they look at the medical records of that clinic, apply whatever diagnostic criteria they think are relevant, and come up with the number of people they think should have received a diagnosis of hypertension. Then can then say, "based on our (or commonly accepted, or these new, or whatever) criteria, hypertension was underdiagnosed at the clinic [by this amount]."

Do you think you achieved results that wouldn't have been possible with conventional cooking?

Daniel: Please describe your experiences, techniques, goals and results with collards, broccoli rabe and asparagus. I'm interested to hear.

Bouley Upstairs has something like 30 seats. What do/did they do?

Possible. I just know that 1/2 ounce of St. Germain in 2 ounces of Tanqueray is too sweet for me, whereas 1/2 ounce of Cointreau in 2 ounces of Tanqueray is okay. It's rare that I'll find 1/2 ounce of a liqueur too sweet in 2 ounces of a relatively dry spirit, which is why St. Germain sticks in my mind as being particularly sweet. Of course, it's also very strong in flavor, so I don't need to use as much of it.

I think it's heresy, but still better than commercial yeast alone. Baking with 100% sourdough, particularly within the constraints of NYC apartment baking and a busy schedule, is challenging. Ordinarily, I find that sourdoughs which have had a full rise and then are retarded overnight have fairly significant gluten degradation by the time it comes to put them in the oven the next day. This degradation is caused by acid, and so gluten degradation and acid flavoring are linked to a certain extent. This is the central challenge of sourdough baking. I guess my question is whether and to what extent you feel that your hybrid dough had real sourdough character? Given your reported technique and results, I'm guessing it came out more like a conventional commercial yeast bread with some "sourdough character enhancement."

Host note, merged from Tiki Ingredient topic. Interesting. I'll have to see if I can do some measuring, because I could swear that St. Germain is significantly more sweet than Cointreau.

So, I picked up a few bottles of Louis Royer Force 53 Cognac yesterday, and mixed up some Improved Brandy Cocktails with 2 ounces of cognac, around 2/3 tsp of homemade gomme syrup, 1/2 tsp of Luxardo maraschino and a few dashes of absinthe. Really nice, and entirely different from what you get using an 80 proof cognac.