Why is Haute not Hot?

[Adam Balic]

N.B. I have found the US usage of "Spicy" to be very confusing, is there a more interational term that would be acceptable?

For capsicum heat, I nominate "fiery" as the best word.

Would this encompass Black Pepper heat?

Do you happen to know the chemistry behind the pungent flavor of black pepper? Is there any capsicum or a similar substance in there or is it a totally different thing? I'd probably distinguish between black pepper pungency and capsicum heat, but maybe there's some overlap. Certainly my brain has interpreted black pepper as fiery on occasion.

Yes the active ("burning") componants are structurally related (eg. "Capsaicin" (red peppers), "piperine" (black pepper), and "zingerone " (ginger)) and are thought to operate through a similar set of receptors, although capsaicin is the most potent. "Long Pepper" which is related to black pepper, has higher levels of piperine and was the spice of choice in Europe from Roman to Medieval times before the introduction of the New World chilli.

Horseradish, mustard and wasabi (also horseradish) operate through a different set of receptors I think.

[Pan]

What about raw garlic, Adam? I've had some amazingly, um, fiery (??) garlic lately - it literally made my mouth tingle.

[Fat Guy]

Certainly, quite a few people think of garlic as "hot," though I don't think I get the same hit from it as from capsicum. But I think you'll find that common to most Western haute cuisine is an absence of large doses of any of the above: capsicum, black pepper, garlic, etc.

[cbarre02]

Capsicum is some thing in haute cuisine that is used as salt, and acids. To pronounce flavor not dominate them. An over abundance of "heat" in a course will carry over to the next course, and loose the diner in the experience. That said the chef could also use this to there advantage and offer a cooling course, and give the diner just what they wanted!

[Pan]

Capsicum is some thing in haute cuisine that is used as salt, and acids. To pronounce flavor not dominate them. An over abundance of "heat" in a course will carry over to the next course, and loose the diner in the experience.

Please clarify what you mean by "loose [lose?] the diner." Do you feel that way when you eat Thai food? Also, you're right about having a "cooling" course in between. That could be a really good concept in some inspired chef's hands: Alternating fiery and "cooling" courses.

[Pan]

Certainly, quite a few people think of garlic as "hot," though I don't think I get the same hit from it as from capsicum. But I think you'll find that common to most Western haute cuisine is an absence of large doses of any of the above: capsicum, black pepper, garlic, etc.

I'll preface this by saying that roasted or otherwise cooked garlic doesn't have "fieryness." But moving on...

Your description would make me think that haute cuisine is tasteless and wimpy, if I didn't know better. Fortunately, I know better. Tasteless food is incompetent. Haute cuisine in my admittedly limited experience is about wonderful ingredients with complementary sauces and, often, at its best, imaginative combinations of tastes, none of which overpowers another, but which can include strong tastes including spices like "fiery" black peppercorns.

But is there such a thing as Italian alta cucina (?) that lacks large amounts of garlic? And would it be worth eating? The smell of garlic roasting in extra virgin olive oil is one of the greatest smells of them all.

Edited February 9, 2004 by Pan (log)

[ExtraMSG]

N.B. I have found the US usage of "Spicy" to be very confusing, is there a more interational term that would be acceptable?

For capsicum heat, I nominate "fiery" as the best word.

so would you say that sichuan cuisine could never be haute?

I don't know enough about Sichuan cuisine to even begin to answer that. Are there high and low versions of Sichuan cuisine? Are all Sichuan dishes spicy? I'd need a lot of information I don't have.

My hypothesis -- which I'd like to test -- is that a lot of capsicum makes it hard to distinguish between levels of quality in ingredients. If so, high heat would be antithetical to the haute nouvelle cuisine philosophy that is currently in play in most of the better Western restaurant kitchens.

I think most ingredients vary in more than just flavor for quality, so it might be difficult. In fact, with meats I bet texture is often a bigger factor in our minds as to what is good versus bad.

But I think we can assume, pretty safely, the idea that capsicum increasingly masks these flavor differences the more of it you use. I'm sure there's a threshold at which this is relatively unimportant which varies from person to person.

But again, I think *any* use of seasoning or mixing of flavors does this. The bigger questions, then, would be:

1) At what point is this detrimental?

2) Is tasting the relative quality of one ingredient more important than the new flavor created by the combination of ingredients and seasoning, in other words, are the sum of the parts by themselves greater than the whole?

Again, I think there's a real tendency to take this idea and do a reductio resulting in the notion that we should be eating sashimi everything. Frankly, I find sashimi about the most boring thing in the world. Yeah, good quality fish. Great. Now, chef, make me go wow with a combination of flavors that is greater as a whole than the sum of the parts.

btw, one interesting effect of fiery things is that they open the sinuses. This has the effect of increasing one's sense of smell. And since smell has more variation than taste stricly from the tongue, in using fiery seasoning you may be opening the person to aromas and a much more full sense of taste.

[NickMach007]

I've heard conflicting reports about capsaicin, does it actually kill off taste buds (that grow back later) in high enough doses? Because if so, then Fat Guy's argument that the heat from chiles masks more subtle flavors would be correct.

So does anyone really know?

Edited February 9, 2004 by NickMach007 (log)

[robyn]

I'd like to propose a test of the basic physical argument I put forward earlier. What ingredient could we choose where a minor difference in quality is generally noticeable? I'm having trouble coming up with something off the top of my head, but the basic experiment would require finding a food product where two levels of quality -- close in quality but different -- are easily obtained. Then we establish a baseline by tasting them against one another blind and making sure we really can tell the difference with a high degree of accuracy. The we hit the two samples with a high degree of capsicum heat and we try the test again and see how well we do.

How about differences not in quality - but taste? I would nominate oysters. You can take 3 types of oysters - all excellent - yet each will have a different taste. When I see people dumping so much pepper sauce on them that you can't possibly taste the oysters - much less the differences among the oysters - I always scratch my head.

By the way - I don't have a particular objection to pepper. I dislike overdosing anything that's really good with excessive amounts of any herb or spice which masks the taste completely (in the south - the main culprit is salt - you might as well just throw away the food and eat the salt out of the shaker). Robyn

[ExtraMSG]

I've heard conflicting reports about capsaicin, does it actually kill off taste buds (that grow back later) in high enough doses? Because if so, then Fat Guy's argument that the heat from chiles masks more subtle flavors would be correct.

So does anyone really know?

I don't think it matters much if it kills them or not, though I have heard that sufficient quantities kills them.

At the very least, though, it keeps them busy. The mind can never distinguish and so evaluate one thing amongst others as well as it can one thing by itself.

But I think there are some analogies that may be fruitful:

* Music: I may not be able to as easily tell if the middle C string on a piano is perfectly in tune or not when a chord is played, but that shouldn't make me stop playing chords. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Likewise, a flute in an orchestra may be slightly out of tune, but that shouldn't make me think that a flute solo would be a better test of quality than a symphony.

* Sports: An all-star team clearly has better individuals than just your average team. But that doesn't devalue teams. Teams as a whole have their own value in how they work together even though one individuals skills and talents may be minimized to some extent as he plays within the team structure.

I really think there's a problem when we start exalting the ingredient rather than looking at the chef's creation, the dish, the meal, as a whole. I see FG as wanting to privilege ingredients (or maybe just pointing out the current trend of privileging ingredients). The chef takes a back seat to the ingredient, which is a huge mistake. It almost makes you think that the purveyor/buyer should be more important than the chef.

Edited February 10, 2004 by ExtraMSG (log)

[robyn]

...I really think there's a problem when we start exalting the ingredient rather than looking at the chef's creation, the dish, the meal, as a whole.  I see FG as wanting to privilege ingredients (or maybe just pointing out the current trend of privileging ingredients).  The chef takes a back seat to the ingredient, which is a huge mistake.  It almost makes you think that the purveyor/buyer should be more important than the chef.

Perhaps the point is just to use common sense - and moderation. We no longer have to use large doses of herbs and spices to mask the flavors of somewhat spoiled food. That is relatively new. My parents grew up in houses with ice boxes - which certainly didn't do as good a job of keeping food fresh as electric refrigerators. And my grandparents didn't even have ice boxes when they were growing up in Europe.

On the other hand - a small amount of herbs and spices can do wonderful things to a dish - as can a beautiful sauce prepared with a deft hand. Just think of mashed potatoes. With no salt. They're totally flat. Add a little salt and there's a world of difference.

I know most of you are younger than I am - but I can tell you that one of the largest areas of "spice abuse" that I see is in people my parents' age. These are people who got used to eating lots and lots of salt on their food. Now that they're 75+ - a lot have high blood pressure - congestive heart failure - etc. Not to mention that one's sense of taste tends to diminish as one ages (along with the other senses). Anyway - a lot of these people can't eat salt. So what do they do. They substitute massive amounts of pepper - on everything. I like a lot of pepper on a cucumber sandwich - but most ingredients are stronger tasting on their own than cucumbers.

You just have to cut back on the salt - pepper - whatever - for a while - and allow yourself to taste the essence of the ingredients you're eating. Then start adding the herbs and spices again. You'll be surprised how a little goes a long way. Try it. You'll have plenty of time to overdose your food when you get old and lose your sense of taste. Robyn

[Pan]

Robyn, if you prefer a small amount of spices and herbs, that's what you should have. But I don't think that makes your taste more refined than someone who prefers a more robust amount of spices and herbs. Oversalted food, though, is terrible.

[Adam Balic]

What about raw garlic, Adam? I've had some amazingly, um, fiery (??) garlic lately - it literally made my mouth tingle.

I see that you answered the question, but yes, the chemical groups that cause the heat in garlic, onions etc belongs to a different class to that in chilli and they are heat labile.

One of the issues with Haute cuisine is that it is Haute. Aside from issues of more refined palates etc, there is a definate social aspect. What you eat is a way of differentiating your class. For example, one of the reasons why spices were dropped from Upper-class European cooking in the 17th C. was that they were becoming more widely available.  

In the same way, they use of chilli and garlic in Haute cooking can be viewed as 'vulgar' or 'common' etc, because that it what The People eat.

[Pan]

Good points, Adam.

But aren't many of the ingredients in haute cuisine common, such as salt? Well, not exactly, because they can use fancy, expensive varieties, but isn't that also true of spices? Basically, I don't dispute your points one iota, but I also don't see why they have to continue to obtain, either, even based on the elitist logic that something "common" is per se low-class and therefore, "low" cuisine.

[Adam Balic]

Well actually, you don't have to look back very far to see how ready access to salt was seen as make of refinement etc. Hence all the extremely beautiful Medieval Salt cellers and sayings like "Below the salt" etc. Your social status was determined by you proximity to the Salt celler on a communal table at one point (often these contained other spices as well).

Unlike more conventional spices, salt has a no intrinsic flavour and is more of a flavour enhancer, so it didn't suffer the decline in social prestige that other spices went through.

As why, well this aspect of social behaviour is only one small part why Haute is haute. People are complex and no doubt have a wide range of reasons from why they may prefer this type of cuisine over more rustic versions. There is also the phenomena of 'reverse snobbery' where people can't accept that Haute is 'better' in some aspects as it is elitist.

[Pan]

Good points again, Adam.

But what do you mean by salt having no flavor? When you have salt by itself, you taste it, do you not? What flavor is it enhancing then?

Also, I thought we had receptors for saltiness in our tongues.

[bleudauvergne]

I think what Adam is trying to define here is the difference between what is institutionally recognized as craft and art.

-Lucy

Edited February 10, 2004 by bleudauvergne (log)

[Pan]

I believe I understand what Adam is trying to do, and I'm glad he's doing it. I just want additional clarifications on some points.

[Adam Balic]

Good points again, Adam.

But what do you mean by salt having no flavor? When you have salt by itself, you taste it, do you not? What flavor is it enhancing then?

Also, I thought we had receptors for saltiness in our tongues.

I think that this definition of "flavour" is a question of semantics, however, I think that we can all agree that preception of salt 'flavour' is a rather different process to the perception of say, nutmeg 'flavour'. Infact the perception of the latter is largely offactory (difficult to taste even a curry with a blocked nose), where as you say salt perception is a matter of receptors on the tongue. A solution of pure NaCl in distilled is difficult to give a flavour to profile to, but we will still say that it 'tastes' salty.

Also as mammals we need and indeed crave salt if we a prevented from getting it. The same cannot be said of more conventional spices, so therefore salt has to be analysed in a different way to other spices, when we consider its presence in Haute cuisine, where as other spices are absent.

[ExtraMSG]

Capsicum, though, is much like salt in that in its refined form, it has no specific flavor but moreso imparts a sensory experience. It may even be more the case with capsicum than with salt. I'd say that sugar is similar but less so. I don't know what a refined bitter is off-hand, but I don't think I'd want to try it. I'm not sure about a refined sour, either.

Capsicum also has the same effect as salt in that it excites the palate, creates salivation, and like I said before, improves the ol' factory senses where the majority of complex flavor is perceived.

I just don't see any objective reasons for haute cuisine to avoid fiery seasoning. It's just the case that it doesn't for seemingly complex cultural/historical reasons.

With the extent of familiarity with other cuisines that chefs have today, I would hope they would push the culinary envelope and make fiery seasoning part of that expansion. It's certainly the case that us diners are doing so.

[Adam Balic]

Capsicum, though, is much like salt in that in its refined form, it has no specific flavor but moreso imparts a sensory experience.  It may even be more the case with capsicum than with salt.  I'd say that sugar is similar but less so.  I don't know what a refined bitter is off-hand, but I don't think I'd want to try it.  I'm not sure about a refined sour, either. 

Capsicum also has the same effect as salt in that it excites the palate, creates salivation, and like I said before, improves the ol' factory senses where the majority of complex flavor is perceived.

I just don't see any objective reasons for haute cuisine to avoid fiery seasoning.  It's just the case that it doesn't for seemingly complex cultural/historical reasons. 

With the extent of familiarity with other cuisines that chefs have today, I would hope they would push the culinary envelope and make fiery seasoning part of that expansion.  It's certainly the case that us diners are doing so.

While it is true that "Capsaicin" in its refined form, has not specific flavour and is more akin to salt in that it imparts a sensory experience, unlike salt it isn't eaten in the pure form. I have read that Scotch bonnet peppers have a diestinct apricot flavour, however, I personally am unable tell due to the 'burn' sensation.

"High" cuisine hasn't always rejected the "Burn", infact it was specifically targeted. Before the introduction of the New World Chilli, a variety of pepper (black pepper type, not chilli pepper) known as the "Long Pepper" was used for the burn (it is much hotter then regular black pepper) and in Roman times this type of pepper was the most expensive.

While I'm sure there are 'objective' reasons for the lack of spice, some of the reasons are not'objective', but rather cultural. For example, some potted history: Italian high end cuisine up until the early 17th C. used a lot of spice and tended to favour sweetened dishes (eg. spices and sugar are expensive and at least one early cookbook instructs sugar and spice to be added 'depending on the status of the guest'). After this period high end cooking reduced the amount of sugar and spices, but more rustic type cooking (taverns etc) increased they amount of these ingredients. So in a hundred or so years they ingredients suffered a reversal in social status.

New world chili has in Western europe have nearly always been seen as lower class item. Part of is social and cultural. What is interesting is if there is an objective reason as well.

Modern Haute cuisine is about highlighting the individual intrinsic flavours of a small number of refined ingredients. The types of cuisine in which spices and chilli work well tend to work by a larger number of different componants working together to produce a synergy of flavours. This doesn't mean that these approaches are mutually exclusive, but it certainly means that it is difficult to reconcile the two philosophys.

In the case of chilli, the strength of the burn is often to much for the highlighting of the prime ingredient - in a Haute cuisine setting it doesn't add to the expreience, where as a less potent spice, like black pepper, can. However, I still beleive that there is room for experimentation. Lets face facts, the range of chillis availble in the regions were European Haute cuisine developed are very limited.

If FG does the chilli and Bresse chicken thing, interperatation of the results will be very different depending on the philosophy used to approach the exercise.

Edited February 10, 2004 by Adam Balic (log)

[Pan]

More good stuff, Adam!

I do think that whole black peppercorns can be very fiery indeed, however. It seems to me that it's chiefly the amounts of black pepper that cause haute cuisine not to be really fiery, though it can have some bite. Similarly, Cayenne pepper is used in haute cuisine dishes, but in moderation.

[Adam Balic]

I think that it is now rare to see any Haute cuisine that has much heat (from what I can tell). Throughout the 19th C. there was a lot of upper-class food (not nessarily 'Haute') that contained large amounts of cayenne, they were even given a name "Deviled", but these dishes were considered an 'appetite' stimulator, rather then being 'Haute'. I wonder if there is any true example of a haute cuisine dish that contains heat (chilli, pepper, mustard, ginger, horseraddish etc) and the heat is there to not as a relish/appetite stimulator.

[Carlovski]

I am no expert, but from what I have read on Sichuan cuisine (Which has a heritage easily as rich as European 'Haute' cusine) the royal and banquet style cooking was more refined, and was in general less fiery than the home cooked style dishes.

The odd dish would still be very highly spiced however.

[Adam Balic]

Carlovski - I have no doubt that there are High cuisines that contain heat/spice, but for this thread I have been confining myself to the Western model, for the simple reason that I know little about the other cuisines and any analysis requires some basic understanding of the philosophy of the cuisine.

That isn't to say that I think that European Haute is "better", just that it is a particular food philosophy and has to be approached in this individual context. What would be interesting would be if there was an example of a 'High' cuisine with a similar aim to the european model (eg. "highlighting the individual intrinsic flavours of a small number of ingredients"), but included spice and heat withing this cooking tradition.

I have only read the Fushia Dunlop book, but does Sichuan cuisine fall into this catagorie?