"Cook's Illustrated"

[Chris Hennes]

I  made the Chicken Satay wth Spicy Peanut Dipping Sauce and we practically inhaled it.  It was that good.  However, and this is true with a lot of CI's international recipes, it wasn't authentic.  Like I said before, this really bothers me with chinese recipes since I have a strong sense of what is "right" in that cuisine, but for other cuisines, including other asian cuisines, I don't mind as long as it tastes good.  And this was definitely delicious.

This is my observation as well. The ethnic stuff isn't too authentic. But typically, they are pretty good versions of non-authentic cooking. In many cases, probably better than what you can get at your supposed "ethnic" restaurant. So many of those are for far from authentic, too.

I would definitely agree that CI's dishes are "inauthentic," as they are clearly designed for the U.S. palate (or more precisely, the palates of the twenty or so "testers" they are always talking about) using ingredients readily available in conventional U.S. grocery stores. We can debate the value and definition of "authenticity" forever (over on this thread), but I don't think Cook's Illustrated has ever claimed they are reproducing an authentic recipe: the whole point is that they think there is something wrong with all the recipes they found ("authentic" ones included!). This is their particular conceit: there is always something "wrong" with the dish, that they can then "fix," even if the "fix" is just using more readily available ingredients. But I don't think this is different from any other cookbook, it is just made more explicit in Cook's Illustrated.

[mrsadm]

Is not having an oven common in Japan? In my experience all but perhaps the smallest apartment in the US has an oven. Others can correct me if I am wrong.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that ovens weren't common in Japan, just that I don't have one. It makes cooking most western dishes difficult for me, since most recipes call for one. I have a recipe from the February 2008 issue for chicken in a pot - it looked interesting, until I read that the chicken is put in a dutch oven, then put inside a regular oven. I guess I was wrong, but I thought the whole point of using a dutch oven was so that it could be cooked over a direct flame. But anyway, it called for being cooked for 80-110 minutes, and then I thought about what that would do to my gas bill, and I hurled the magazine into a corner. Where it has sat until I dusted it off just now to see what month it was.

←

I think pretty much every dutch oven recipe that says bake in the oven, can be equally cooked on the stovetop. Just keep the flame low and check it now and then.

[Boy R D]

This is why I like CI. The other day I was sitting in a waiting room and happened to pick up an issue of Gourmet Magazine. Out of curiosity, I started counting from the front how many pages were devoted to advertising and how many were devoted to the subject of food and cooking. I got to like page thirty something and only had eight pages that were not advertising or adds trying to look like recipes.

Point is, CI is not a "lifestyle" magazine that's always trying to make you feel like some looser if you don't own this or that. I believe that CI is actually trying to impart some knowledge here. Sure at times maybe they'll miss the mark or disappoint but but I've found this to be the case in all relationships, nobody's perfect.

So, I get enough good info out of Cooks Illustrated to overlook the parts that don't work so well for me and if I want a mag with more authenticity, I grab my copy of Saveur.

[zenpup]

Have had some fun reading this thread. Personally, I've found many of the recipes are quite good from CI, especially the Parmesan Chicken and their Coconut Macaroons with added coconut cream...BUT...

I am offended by their smarmy pronouncements of something being "The Best_____". Often it's quite good, but certainly not the best.

Their recipes are needlessly long and involved, dirties every pan and bowl in the kitchen, and more often than not, a similar result can be achieved by a seaoned cook in a mattter of minutes in a single pan. It's the time spent practicing, not a single go at something that makes you a fine anything.

CI has truly built themselves a brand consciousness; in some circles a CI recipe carries the same weight as a having a Coach logo on a handbag.

I sell kitchenware for a living, and truly am annoyed that if CI puts their seal of approval on an item, customers become blind to the merits of other exceptional quality products. Lemmings.

[CaliPoutine]

I sell kitchenware for a living, and truly am annoyed that if CI puts their seal of approval on an item, customers become blind to the merits of other exceptional quality products. Lemmings.

I'm not ashamed to say that I usually look at CI's ratings before I buy a new gadet. I've bought quite a few things they've recomended and I have not been dissapointed.

I'll list a few here.

1. The acu-sharp knife sharpener. It was 7 bucks on ebay and it works like a charm.

2. The oven mitts that got a best buy. Once again, they were 2.16 on Amazon and they're fabulous. I bought 3 pair again about 6 months ago in case they're ever discontinued.

3. The garlic press. Excellent.

4. The Oxo I-series peeler. I've always been a big fan of Oxo so this was a no-brainer for me.

[pansophia]

the palates of the twenty or so "testers" they are always talking about

I'm not totally sure if this is what you mean by testers but I'm actually a "Friend of Cook's Illustrated" i.e. a recipe tester. I get recipes in my email every few months, try them, and fill out a survey. Anyone can do it, I read about it on the forums over there once upon a time. Just imagine if we got more eGulleters on the test force!

[Josho]

I sell kitchenware for a living, and truly am annoyed that if CI puts their seal of approval on an item, customers become blind to the merits of other exceptional quality products. Lemmings.

←

This seems like a very curious criticism. Do you feel the same way about, say, Consumer Reports?

I think CI is quite good about listing the *whys* of their preferences, so if somebody's got criteria other than those CI lists, the ratings are still helpful. (It's the same as with their recipes: they lay out their criteria for what THEY consider the "ideal" of a given dish, and design the recipe to reach that end; for those whose ideal is different, CI's lengthy descriptions usually have enough info to point people in the direction they want to go.)

And as for the "Lemmings" comment...I don't understand. An organization that does a tremendous amount of cooking on a daily basis tests various brands and models of a given piece of cookware, and prints its findings. Consumers are certainly not poorly served by this. Maybe a person with money to burn could afford to go out and do their own tests and reach their own conclusions, but that's a time-consuming and expensive process, and if they follow CI's recommendations and generally get very good results, what's the flaw in the process?

Like it or not, taking advice from someone who has a financial stake in the consumer's decision seems like a less reliable way to proceed overall. That is not a slur on you or any other kitchenware salesperson in particular; there are plenty of salespeople who value repeat business over a quick buck, and give honest recommendations. But have they tested as many items of a given type as CI does? Have their tests been as comprehensive, as transparent, and as well-documented?

--Josh

[dockhl]

the palates of the twenty or so "testers" they are always talking about

I'm not totally sure if this is what you mean by testers but I'm actually a "Friend of Cook's Illustrated" i.e. a recipe tester. I get recipes in my email every few months, try them, and fill out a survey. Anyone can do it, I read about it on the forums over there once upon a time. Just imagine if we got more eGulleters on the test force!

←

I'm one , too. Fun. I tested recipes for Sam Gugino's COOKING TO BEAT THE CLOCK cookbooks, too. I really enjoy that.

[laniloa]

I'm another CI fan. I was never bothered by the "best" labeling since they give you variations for the recipes. If there are variations, clearly there is no one best and they are inviting you to play around. And I never had to deal with customer service so don't have that bad experience.

Several have hit on recipes I enjoy. I also like their oven recipe for brown rice. I had only used a rice cooker and mine is a cheap model without the programming for brown rice. I burned several stove top attempts but love the oven recipe. I freeze portions for later use.

Other favs include artichoke-lemon hummus, brown sugar cookies (major office fav), honey-lavender biscotti, raspberry streusel bars, and I can always count on skimming through the listing of various pan sauces (which I have copied from the initial article into a separate sauce file) when I'm tired of the same old chicken.

[PopsicleToze]

While the criticism is noted and some of it somewhat justified, I was amused that when a poster on another thread asked for a sure-fire way to prepare eye of round, several of the members recommended a C.I. method of preparing it as the only good way they've found to prepare that cut of beef.

Rhonda

[CaliPoutine]

While the criticism is noted and some of it somewhat justified, I was amused that when a poster on another thread asked for a sure-fire way to prepare eye of round, several of the members recommended a C.I. method of preparing it as the only good way they've found to prepare that cut of beef. 

Rhonda

←

Funny, I saw that and thought the exact same thing.

[JAZ]

. . . the whole point is that they think there is something wrong with all the recipes they found ("authentic" ones included!). This is their particular conceit: there is always something "wrong" with the dish, that they can then "fix," even if the "fix" is just using more readily available ingredients. But I don't think this is different from any other cookbook, it is just made more explicit in Cook's Illustrated.

←

My complaint about many Cook's Illustrated articles is that "problem" they're attempting to fix rarely seems to be a real problem. A friend of mine once described Cook's Illustrated's approach as the "straw man theory of kitchen science," which I think is dead on.

In the May issue, for example, they're trying to come up with a recipe for a fruit fool that doesn't use custard. The reason, they say, is that "cooking custard is a fussy endeavor." News flash, folks -- no, it isn't. And it's certainly no more fussy than their solution, which is mixing sour cream into whipped cream for the base and then "softening gelatin in some uncooked berry puree and then combining the softened mixture with some heated puree to help melt and distribute the gelatin."

I mean, please. If you want to put that much effort into the fruit for a fool, why not make a custard?

[Chris Hennes]

. . . the whole point is that they think there is something wrong with all the recipes they found ("authentic" ones included!). This is their particular conceit: there is always something "wrong" with the dish, that they can then "fix," even if the "fix" is just using more readily available ingredients. But I don't think this is different from any other cookbook, it is just made more explicit in Cook's Illustrated.

←

My complaint about many Cook's Illustrated articles is that "problem" they're attempting to fix rarely seems to be a real problem. A friend of mine once described Cook's Illustrated's approach as the "straw man theory of kitchen science," which I think is dead on.

←

I absolutely agree, though I think that it has gotten worse over the last couple years. It's like they are running out of recipes to "fix" so they go looking for problems where there are none. Even worse, they have to fill up an entire article describing what was wrong with every other recipe in existence and how they managed to fix it (just in the nick of time, no doubt!). Take their recipe for Fettucini Alfredo, for example: this is a classic dish (that predates Alfredo, but don't get me started!) that is just not that difficult. So they spent half the article teaching you to warm up your fricking plates!!!!! Seriously... I appreciated the idea about only reducing half the cream, but that would have resulted in a three-sentence article, and they needed filler. Gah! I subscribe anyway, the recipes are usually good... and I'm a sucker.

[pups224]

Cook's recipes are totally middle of the road and have zero edge. They are so boooring.

Sort of like some one from the middle of nowhere USA, who fancies him/her self a "gourmet cook", and dishes up CI for that special meal.

[jsmeeker]

. . . the whole point is that they think there is something wrong with all the recipes they found ("authentic" ones included!). This is their particular conceit: there is always something "wrong" with the dish, that they can then "fix," even if the "fix" is just using more readily available ingredients. But I don't think this is different from any other cookbook, it is just made more explicit in Cook's Illustrated.

←

My complaint about many Cook's Illustrated articles is that "problem" they're attempting to fix rarely seems to be a real problem. A friend of mine once described Cook's Illustrated's approach as the "straw man theory of kitchen science," which I think is dead on.

←

I absolutely agree, though I think that it has gotten worse over the last couple years. It's like they are running out of recipes to "fix" so they go looking for problems where there are none.

←

That, and they seem to do some dishes over. Which is sorta odd to me. I mean, wasn't the last one "perfect".

Is CI haute cusine? Cutting edge? No. of course not. It doesn't try to be. It really represents what a lot of people actually cook at home. And really, I like to cook like that at home. And even serve that to guests. Or make something at home and take it someplace to serve people. And it always gets raves. When I want really cutting edge, I'll go out for it at a restaurant.

[jumanggy]

In the May issue, for example, they're trying to come up with a recipe for a fruit fool that doesn't use custard. The reason, they say, is that "cooking custard is a fussy endeavor." News flash, folks -- no, it isn't. And it's certainly no more fussy than their solution, which is mixing sour cream into whipped cream for the base and then "softening gelatin in some uncooked berry puree and then combining the softened mixture with some heated puree to help melt and distribute the gelatin."

Oh boy, that's just too funny. That's not really fair to the readers, I think. I thought the whole point was to demystify the process and make it attainable. Real custard is good stuff. And it's easy.

I made white cake their way once, just to try it out. It involved processing the butter with the flour and sugar first, then to beat in a milk-egg white mixture. The outcome was kind of meh, certainly not better than the classic method of creaming and alternating milk and flour. The worst part I guess would be that it broke my natural rhythm in making a cake.

Even worse, they have to fill up an entire article describing what was wrong with every other recipe in existence and how they managed to fix it (just in the nick of time, no doubt!).

HA HA! Good one. I find that I consult CI when it comes to classic American recipes, and as mentioned before, foolproof methods of cooking (note: not flavoring) meat, like brining and grilling, etc.

Edited June 7, 2008 by jumanggy (log)

[Chris Hennes]

That, and they seem to do some dishes over. Which is sorta odd to me. I mean, wasn't the last one "perfect".   

In my opinion, many of their early issues miss the "perfection" mark by a pretty wide margin, so I'm happy to have them revisit some of those. I have recently been trying to stay away from recipes published in the 90's if there is a more recent version: in my experience, the more recent one is generally far superior.

Cook's recipes are totally middle of the road and have zero edge. They are so boooring.

Sort of like some one from the middle of nowhere USA, who fancies him/her self a "gourmet cook", and dishes up CI for that special meal.

This seems to be over-stating things, in my opinion. I mean, OK, I'm from the middle of nowhere USA, I fancy myself a "gourmet cook," and I dish up CI for, well, many meals, in fact, but to say categorically that all of those meals are "boooring" strikes me as a little pedantic. When the vast majority of Americans are serving frozen dinners, casseroles featuring cream of mushroom soup, and enchiladas with canned sauce, I think making Sichuan Green Beans, homemade enchiladas, and burgers with fresh ground beef, seems downright exciting. As jsmeeker says,

Is CI  haute cusine?  Cutting edge?  No. of course not. It doesn't try to be. It really represents what a lot of people actually cook at home. 

I have no other cookbook or recipe resource that provides me with the consistent success that Cook's Illustrated does. So while it could of course be argued that using a recipe at all is "boooring," as far as I am concerned, the fact remains that at least with CI you are going to end up with something that tastes good.

[jsmeeker]

I have no other cookbook or recipe resource that provides me with the consistent success that Cook's Illustrated does. So while it could of course be argued that using a recipe at all is "boooring," as far as I am concerned, the fact remains that at least with CI you are going to end up with something that tastes good.

←

Exactly. I almost always get a pretty solid result. It's very reliable. This seems especially true for their baking/sweets/desserts.

[AnnaC]

I have to concur with everyone above who has used CI either as a reference or for a likely source of reliable recipes. When the boyfriend requests a new dish, I always look through back issues of CI and their books to concoct a balance of technique/recipe, or at least consult their intros in re: potential difficulties. Also, I think that for ambitious new cooks the exhaustive instructions (and sidebars on techniques that we all think we know) can be very useful. While Kimball et al. may generate the world's most time-consuming recipes, I'm always willing to try out their directions for items that I think I already do pretty well!

And to their credit, the perfect pie crust (from American Classics) turns out well even when you dyslexically use 12 T shortening and 8 T butter as opposed to the other way around. I was too stubborn to start over, even if it was a PITA to roll out. Needed a ton of time in the fridge to chill out, let's say.

[pups224]

That, and they seem to do some dishes over. Which is sorta odd to me. I mean, wasn't the last one "perfect".    

In my opinion, many of their early issues miss the "perfection" mark by a pretty wide margin, so I'm happy to have them revisit some of those. I have recently been trying to stay away from recipes published in the 90's if there is a more recent version: in my experience, the more recent one is generally far superior.

Cook's recipes are totally middle of the road and have zero edge. They are so boooring.

Sort of like some one from the middle of nowhere USA, who fancies him/her self a "gourmet cook", and dishes up CI for that special meal.

This seems to be over-stating things, in my opinion. I mean, OK, I'm from the middle of nowhere USA, I fancy myself a "gourmet cook," and I dish up CI for, well, many meals, in fact, but to say categorically that all of those meals are "boooring" strikes me as a little pedantic. When the vast majority of Americans are serving frozen dinners, casseroles featuring cream of mushroom soup, and enchiladas with canned sauce, I think making Sichuan Green Beans, homemade enchiladas, and burgers with fresh ground beef, seems downright exciting. As jsmeeker says,

Is CI  haute cusine?  Cutting edge?  No. of course not. It doesn't try to be. It really represents what a lot of people actually cook at home. 

I have no other cookbook or recipe resource that provides me with the consistent success that Cook's Illustrated does. So while it could of course be argued that using a recipe at all is "boooring," as far as I am concerned, the fact remains that at least with CI you are going to end up with something that tastes good.

←

Maybe to you. To me their recipes are inauthentic and with the rare exception so "white bread".

[Shelby]

How much is a subscription to CI a year? And, do they send a bunch of crap--i.e. hardcover cookbooks to review and buy etc.?

I bought the August issue that was on the newsstand a few days ago. I also bought the country version...I forget the name. I actually liked the country one better than the regular one recipe wise.

[Andrew Fenton]

How much is a subscription to CI a year?  And, do they send a bunch of crap--i.e. hardcover cookbooks to review and buy etc.?

I don't remember off-hand how much my subscription is. But no, they don't send you anything other than the magazine. It's an honest, straightforward organization, as far as I can tell, and the magazine is a good value.

That said, I'm thinking about letting my subscription lapse. Two things in a recent issue (June/July, I think) triggered that:

- First, the blueberry pie recipe. Not that it's a bad recipe- I tried it, and it was very good. But then a week later, I made blueberry pie the way I normally do. It was much less fussy to prepare, and was just as good.

- Second, the recipe for herbed roast chicken (in the same issue, I think). I have nothing against roast chicken- but this is the second roast chicken recipe in a year, and something like the fourth in the last five years! How many roast chicken recipes does the world need?

I think that CI suffers from the same problem as a lot of how-to magazines. There are always going to be new people coming in, who want to learn certain basic recipes, like roast chicken. They can't just repeat the same recipe every few years; there has to be a twist, in this case, a new technique that produces a still-better product. Since they can also bring in new recipes (pork lo mein, etc.) it isn't quite as repetitive as, say, parenting magazines or (lord help us) bridal magazines. But because of their focus on basic, middle-of-the-road American dishes, they'll have more repetition than some other cooking magazines do.

There's still enough ideas in each new issue to make my subscription worth it... I think. But that gets harder to justify every year.

[kbjesq]

How much is a subscription to CI a year?  And, do they send a bunch of crap--i.e. hardcover cookbooks to review and buy etc.?

I bought the August issue that was on the newsstand a few days ago.  I also bought the country version...I forget the name.  I actually liked the country one better than the regular one recipe wise.

←

Shelby, I had subscriptions to both CI and Cook's Country, plus an online subscription for awhile. I had nothing but TROUBLE when I tried to cancel/not-renew my subscriptions. A quick internet search will reveal that my experience is pretty common. It took me months and I still dispute that they gave me a proper credit/refund. On top of that, some of my issues were never received. (Even on the CI bulletin board there are threads about the abysmal customer service).

I think the regular subscription price is around $26/yr, but it is only 6 issues.

My suggestion is rather than getting tangled in that mess, go on Amazon and buy copies of the annual recipes books. I bought the 2006 CI Annual for .01 plus shipping! I just did a quick look and there seem to be plenty for sale for less than $10.

Just my .02, but I think that you will find a lot of people who agree with me!

[Shelby]

Thanks Andrew and KB. I always ask a lot of questions about subscriptions because I had a nightmare with a cooking club a few years ago *shudder*

Good idea, KB about buying off of Amazon. I think I'll just do that!

[pedie]

A question for those who have subscribed both to the magazine and to the online website. If you could only have one, which would it be??