I've inadvertently run this experiment many times. For years I followed Alton's original Good Eats instruction and started with cold water. Shells were always hard to peel. After Kenji's article I switched to adding eggs to boiling water, and it makes a huge difference in peelability. Also, cook time is more precise because the water temperature is constant; different ranges/burners/pots/waterlevels boil at different rates.
The only problem with starting in boiling water is that if your eggs come directly from the fridge (ie store bought eggs) some will often crack from the heat shock. This can be mitigated by putting eggs in lukewarm water for a few minutes first. Or just get chickens and keep your eggs at room temperature :-)
I once needed to make 40 soft-boiled deviled eggs for a cooking contest. I got dozens of the cheapest eggs and tried all the techniques, both cooking and peeling. I found one cooking and peeling method that works for every single form of boiled egg.
The Ajitsuke Tamago method is the best cooking method. Stir egg(s) in a pot of boiling water for an exact amount of time and then dunk the egg in ice water. It's 100% accurate (no overcooked/uneven eggs) and fast. Change the time to switch between soft, medium, and hard boiled. Do not use too many eggs at once to prevent rapid temperature draw.
For peeling, the best method by far is the spoon method. You point the tip of a spoon into the eggshell at a ~15degree angle and move the spoon up between the shell and egg. Continue moving the tip up along the interior egg shell until the entire shell has been peeled away. You use a continuous motion so it's not finicky or time-consuming. None of the egg is damaged. Works on soft, medium, and hard-boiled eggs, and on old and fresh eggs alike. No water needed.
One technique I find that works every time to make peeling easy is to instantly run the eggs under the tap once the timer has finished. My only explanation is it causes a temperature shock which helps the membrane peel away from the inner egg.
I don't think he was the first of the Kenji/Alton Brown/Cooks Illustrated types to say this though. I'm pretty sure I switched to washing before he posted this.
I don't think it's about absorbing, but more about how you pat dry your meat before searing. But then who wants to sit and pat dry two dozen tiny mushrooms one by one after wetting them.
The logic they're all using on #2 is verkakte; the aromatics they're talking about penetrating the meat don't penetrate at all (the molecules are too large). Salt penetrates, which is why brining works, but flavors generally don't.
First, the water will act as lubricant to prevent burning. Second, the water will take the initial heat instead of the bacon. But as the water gets hotter the heat will also transfer to the bacon's fat, which will start to render (go from solid to liquid). By the time the water boils away the fat will now be present in the pan as lubricant.
For #9 I wish they offered a clear better alternative, I wonder if they would agree on any one technique, probably not.
For me I haven’t found a better, easier way than reverse sear, I know sous vide is good but I refuse to go there for now.
Re: sous vide, why not? We've been using this for quite a while, it was one of those "experiments" during the shutdowns.
Yeah, it takes some equipment, and like everything else there's a bit of a learning curve. For a lot of foods we like it works exceedingly well.
One thing though is that an item (poultry, fish, steak, etc.) cooked sous vide is essentially poached, probably not how you'd like to serve it. One way to deal with this is searing cooked meats rapidly in a cast-iron skillet. An alternative (that I prefer) is using my trustworthy Bernzomatic propane torch for the job. A quick "painting" with the flame gives a nice appearance and taste. Fun to do especially when we have dinner guests, a little dramatic flair never hurts.
And of course when not "incinerating" the evening meal, the torch is great for welding aluminum parts, a true multi-use tool.
I've read that for reverse sear the steak needs to be an inch and a half thick or more. That's rare to find here - have you made it work with thinner steaks?
Myself, I use a stainless steel frying pan on medium high, steaks stay on each side for about 4-5 minutes and that’s it. Perfect medium rare all the time with a great sear on the outside. That’s for 1” steaks by the way.
> 2. Marinating for 30 minutes achieves the same goal as marinating for 24 hours.
I wonder if they confused the marinating with salt/vinegar softening? Marinating for taste should make no or barely any difference, salt/vinegar will need more time to work.
That's Bonappetit for you. All of their videos of this nature have wildly unqualified folks. One of them featured Alex Delaney who I think was the editor in chief's assistant before he became drinks editor. I'm sure the guy cooks, but they lost my respect when they put him in a video about "Pro chefs". (I didn't watch this one, sorry, but I hope he's not in it)
To me the point was how even pro chefs don't agree or know the answer. People like Kenji or Ragusea showed me how much of existing tricks aren't based in any real food science.
Ragusea’s video about how searing in extra virgin olive oil is perfectly fine (and in fact healthier than more neutral oils due to the monounsatured fats) was eye-opening. My dad always liked to sear in olive oil and said he didn’t believe the claims that it would impart a burnt taste to the food (but it indeed gives the crust a non-neutral flavor if that’s what you’re going for).
Personally, I never thought soaking dried beans overnight made sense. I eventually found a blog post where a chef did a blind taste test of soaking overnight vs directly boiling dried beans and found that they taste better without the soaking (but take longer to cook). Ever since then I have made what I think results in the tastiest hummus by skipping the soaking, skipping the baking soda (which imparts a weird aftertaste), and just straight boiling dried Umbrian chickpeas, followed by passing the final product through a #60 lab-grade sieve. Saves time, is much smoother, and tastes better than any recipe I’ve found online.
The only item that I am surprised about on the list is the chefs’ collective opinion on reverse searing. Personally I’ve found it works better than almost anything else if you’re not looking for a technique that imparts additional flavor (e.g., grilling over binchotan is my ultimate favorite approach for many types of meat but that is due to the unique smoky flavor rather than grilling per se). Reverse searing tough cuts for 6-7 hours at a very low PID-controlled temperature even seems to work much better than braising for flavor. I would like to see some blind taste tests for claims about methods that work better than the reverse sear.
There's a reason they call it culinary arts and not culinary science. Different cultures and chefs have had their own approaches to dishes, methods of preparation and secret recipes for thousands of years. Why are you expecting a group of them to get together and unanimously agree on how to cook?
the gut feelings of working professional recipe creators seems pretty valid to me. id take that over a scientific approach that lacked professional experience to provide context.
As I've gotten more into cooking as I've gotten older it's frustrating how often people don't really understand why they do things the way they do when they cook something, yet will doggedly insist that it must be done that certain way. As I've started to watch more and pay attention to youtubers who explain why they do things in a logical and rational way, even if you're not interested in that particular recipe, the correctly explained and justified techniques will be beneficial in many other things you cook.
The problem is the pros do this all the time as well. There are plenty of top chefs that were taught something when they were young and they continue to do it and preach it despite evidence that it’s not true.
There are also cases where the thing the chefs were doing was correct, even if they didn't know why or had the wrong reason. This is both the pro and the con of tradition-based crafts.
Anyway where were they even to get this information? Kenji has been influential the last few years, and he builds very heavily off of McGee, which came out in the mid 80s. It's been only like two generations of chefs here since evidence like this was even partially available.
Before that, and still mostly, the intersection of science and cooking is driven by the needs of the industrial food system. Whether you can apply that to restaurant cooking probably depends a lot on your personal background and skill set, but most cooks I've worked with would be lost trying to read an academic food science paper and apply it to their work. I definitely would be.
That's a big part of the problem. Another issue is they're working in professional kitchens, and things aren't the same as they are for a home cook. Yes there are things a home cook can learn from pro kitchens, but a lot of other things don't translate.
One thing I love about folks like Kenji, Brown, Gritzer, McGee, Cooks Illustrated, et al is they approach their experiments from the perspective of a reasonable home kitchen.
Pro chefs aren't the ones to ask here. It's a craft you learn through repetition and doesn't necessarily require much scientific knowledge.
It's like the idea that you sear a piece of meat to 'seal in juices'. It's absolute nonsense, but you can sear a piece of meat and have it still be juicy. So it's one of those things that is widely believed to correlate when it doesn't. It's something done for flavour and texture and doesn't actually affect juiciness.
Maybe but there's definitely a difference in the amount of water content left when cooked say, MR vs MW (and final weight would reinforce that as well). And I find fattier cuts are perceived to be more 'juicy' as well.
Are any of these people "pro chefs"? It looks like they all either work for Bon Appetit, or do catering and private chef work. A "chef" runs a kitchen; it's like being the VP/Engineering of a cooking team.
Eh it doesn't carry that meaning outside of the industry. You can fight it if you want but in english people seem to commonly understand "chef" to mean "professional, or maybe just fancy, cook."
Reading part of the transcript made me realize how a huge percentage of your average entertainment video is just... nonsensical filling material. I mean.... like... you know... totally... like....... OK so... word.
A few other commenters have mentioned Kenji or Alton, but somehow Modernist Cuisine hasn’t yet been mentioned. 2500 pages packed with science, engineering, and stunning photography all in the name of making food as good as it can be, with an emphasis on rigorous empiricism and first principles analysis.
After skimming it the first time, you begin to take a lot of other food media with a grain of salt.
It's an incredible artifact but not very useful as a cooking resource, even the "at home" variants. It is more the kind of thing you have on hand to occasionally reference as you're developing a recipe.
I'm trying to be charitable here but that series is laser-targeted at appealing to people who think science and engineering are virtues, rather than people who actually do cooking. Not that there isn't useful info in it, but it's more of a vanity project than something driven by a real need.
His rage seems to bubble for the silliest things, though. He won't even call kaffir lime leaves by their name because someone somewhere might take offense — which is ridiculous given the fact that the most likely etymology of the term isn't what some ignorant individuals assume.
It's like never describing anyone as "niggardly" because stupid people exist.
Now, his recipes are generally great, and I appreciate his generosity in giving away some recipes from the restaurant he co-founded.
It's kind of odd that your example of his rage bubbling is that he uses one word rather than another. I'd have expected at least something like going around the internet criticizing people for using the word he doesn't prefer for reasons he disagrees with.
I was reading the beginning of this thinking "oh god here we go again this is like that few years when everyone on reddit was slobbering to say the word niggardly and explain why it's good" and then you just did exactly that lmao.
If a word is bothering someone why don't you find out why, instead of explain to them why it shouldn't?
Readit News
1. Fruits ripen faster if placed in a paper bag with apples or bananas.
> Agree x 6
2. Marinating for 30 minutes achieves the same goal as marinating for 24 hours.
> Disagree x 6. Tested on pork tenderloin.
3. Adding oil to pasta water prevents pasta from sticking.
> Disagree x 6
4. Adding citrus to guacamole will stop it from oxidizing.
> Agree x 6
5. You should wash your mushrooms before cooking.
> Disagree x 6
6. Silpat baking mats are better for even baking versus parchment versus foil.
> Agree x 5, Sideways x 1. Tested on chocolate chip cookies.
7. Beans need to be soaked overnight before cooking.
> Disagree x 5, Agree x 1
8. The best way to get crispy bacon is to start with a cold pan.
> Agree x 4, Disagree x 2. Tested on bacon.
9. The reverse-sear method is the best way to cook a perfect medium rare steak.
> Disagree x 6
10. You should rinse your meat before cooking.
> Disagree x 6
11. Hard boiled eggs should be started in cold water.
> Disagree x 5, Agree x 1
https://www.seriouseats.com/the-secrets-to-peeling-hard-boil...
I've inadvertently run this experiment many times. For years I followed Alton's original Good Eats instruction and started with cold water. Shells were always hard to peel. After Kenji's article I switched to adding eggs to boiling water, and it makes a huge difference in peelability. Also, cook time is more precise because the water temperature is constant; different ranges/burners/pots/waterlevels boil at different rates.
The only problem with starting in boiling water is that if your eggs come directly from the fridge (ie store bought eggs) some will often crack from the heat shock. This can be mitigated by putting eggs in lukewarm water for a few minutes first. Or just get chickens and keep your eggs at room temperature :-)
The Ajitsuke Tamago method is the best cooking method. Stir egg(s) in a pot of boiling water for an exact amount of time and then dunk the egg in ice water. It's 100% accurate (no overcooked/uneven eggs) and fast. Change the time to switch between soft, medium, and hard boiled. Do not use too many eggs at once to prevent rapid temperature draw.
For peeling, the best method by far is the spoon method. You point the tip of a spoon into the eggshell at a ~15degree angle and move the spoon up between the shell and egg. Continue moving the tip up along the interior egg shell until the entire shell has been peeled away. You use a continuous motion so it's not finicky or time-consuming. None of the egg is damaged. Works on soft, medium, and hard-boiled eggs, and on old and fresh eggs alike. No water needed.
For me, they don’t crack right out of the fridge!
Deleted Comment
Called Eierpiekser in German: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B000A8BKX8/
I don't think he was the first of the Kenji/Alton Brown/Cooks Illustrated types to say this though. I'm pretty sure I switched to washing before he posted this.
After they are cooked place them in cold water until they cool off a bit.
You'll have no trouble peeling either way.
Hah, that was my question after I started reading, good thing I did ctrl+f fridge ;)
Start in a cold pan, but put a little bit of water in it (just enough to cover the bacon). Per America's Test Kitchen:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2guC4Badq2s
First, the water will act as lubricant to prevent burning. Second, the water will take the initial heat instead of the bacon. But as the water gets hotter the heat will also transfer to the bacon's fat, which will start to render (go from solid to liquid). By the time the water boils away the fat will now be present in the pan as lubricant.
For larger batches bake it in the oven:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J84JQU71WBc
Yeah, it takes some equipment, and like everything else there's a bit of a learning curve. For a lot of foods we like it works exceedingly well.
One thing though is that an item (poultry, fish, steak, etc.) cooked sous vide is essentially poached, probably not how you'd like to serve it. One way to deal with this is searing cooked meats rapidly in a cast-iron skillet. An alternative (that I prefer) is using my trustworthy Bernzomatic propane torch for the job. A quick "painting" with the flame gives a nice appearance and taste. Fun to do especially when we have dinner guests, a little dramatic flair never hurts.
And of course when not "incinerating" the evening meal, the torch is great for welding aluminum parts, a true multi-use tool.
I wonder if they confused the marinating with salt/vinegar softening? Marinating for taste should make no or barely any difference, salt/vinegar will need more time to work.
Personally, I never thought soaking dried beans overnight made sense. I eventually found a blog post where a chef did a blind taste test of soaking overnight vs directly boiling dried beans and found that they taste better without the soaking (but take longer to cook). Ever since then I have made what I think results in the tastiest hummus by skipping the soaking, skipping the baking soda (which imparts a weird aftertaste), and just straight boiling dried Umbrian chickpeas, followed by passing the final product through a #60 lab-grade sieve. Saves time, is much smoother, and tastes better than any recipe I’ve found online.
The only item that I am surprised about on the list is the chefs’ collective opinion on reverse searing. Personally I’ve found it works better than almost anything else if you’re not looking for a technique that imparts additional flavor (e.g., grilling over binchotan is my ultimate favorite approach for many types of meat but that is due to the unique smoky flavor rather than grilling per se). Reverse searing tough cuts for 6-7 hours at a very low PID-controlled temperature even seems to work much better than braising for flavor. I would like to see some blind taste tests for claims about methods that work better than the reverse sear.
Anyway where were they even to get this information? Kenji has been influential the last few years, and he builds very heavily off of McGee, which came out in the mid 80s. It's been only like two generations of chefs here since evidence like this was even partially available.
Before that, and still mostly, the intersection of science and cooking is driven by the needs of the industrial food system. Whether you can apply that to restaurant cooking probably depends a lot on your personal background and skill set, but most cooks I've worked with would be lost trying to read an academic food science paper and apply it to their work. I definitely would be.
One thing I love about folks like Kenji, Brown, Gritzer, McGee, Cooks Illustrated, et al is they approach their experiments from the perspective of a reasonable home kitchen.
It's like the idea that you sear a piece of meat to 'seal in juices'. It's absolute nonsense, but you can sear a piece of meat and have it still be juicy. So it's one of those things that is widely believed to correlate when it doesn't. It's something done for flavour and texture and doesn't actually affect juiciness.
After skimming it the first time, you begin to take a lot of other food media with a grain of salt.
I'm trying to be charitable here but that series is laser-targeted at appealing to people who think science and engineering are virtues, rather than people who actually do cooking. Not that there isn't useful info in it, but it's more of a vanity project than something driven by a real need.
It's like never describing anyone as "niggardly" because stupid people exist.
Now, his recipes are generally great, and I appreciate his generosity in giving away some recipes from the restaurant he co-founded.
What do you think is the most likely etymology that doesn't do back to Arabic for infidel?
If a word is bothering someone why don't you find out why, instead of explain to them why it shouldn't?