My sister emailed me a link to an NY Times article on kitchen myths and I thought it was intriguing enough to cast a few observations on it, though I wish someone would do a “Mythbusters”-style assault on this subject. Obviously I can’t cover all of them, but here is what I’ve observed. And what’s so scary about this whole thing is that a tiny bit of common sense alone is sufficient to debunk some of the myths—a degree in physics is not required:
1. Oil in pasta water prevents it from sticking
The few times I did this I noticed a few things; for one, the pasta stuck no matter how much oil was in the water, but only because I didn’t stir it. Figure it out: pasta is made of flour. If you mix flour and water in the right concentration, you have a pretty good glue (I did when I was little). If you put two strands of pasta together in hot water and they’re touching, the first thing that’s going to happen is that the gluten on them is going to swell in the water, becoming sticky, especially in the first few seconds of cooking. Since they’re next to each other, the strands are going to bond unless they are physically separated and water is allowed to come between them. This is the also the reason that one is taught to use lots of water to boil pasta. If you use less water, you can still make decent pasta, but you are going to have to be a hell of a lot more attentive to keep it from sticking because of the larger quantity of parts per million of gluten particles.
What I found out from adding oil to the water is that it helped to keep the water from boiling over (probably by interfering with the bubbles’ ability to explode quite so vigorously on the surface).
2. Throwing a piece of spaghetti on the wall will tell you if it’s done
After decades of making pasta I’ve discovered some things. First, never go by what they tell you on the label about how long to cook the pasta. Second, never walk away and leave while the pasta is cooking. All you have to do to make sure you make perfect pasta is to have plenty of water, salt it as much as the sea, stir it vigorously until the water has regained enough boil to mix it up by itself, and keep tasting the pasta after the 6-7 minute mark (depending on the thickness of the pasta). Then, drain it while it’s still quite a bit underdone and don’t for god’s sake rinse it in cold water (unless you’re going to bake it in the oven later) and without shaking it completely dry just deposit it in a container. And this is only if you’re not serving it immediately (which few of us do). The pasta will continue to soften in the next few minutes by the steam generated by its own heat and will be perfectly al dente by the time you serve it.
Of course, the old wall myth is kind of tortured, so I won’t even dignify it here.
Note that all of the above does NOT refer to fresh pasta (almost a totally different species).
3. Peeling and removing the seeds from tomatoes make for a better sauce
Okay, I’ll bite: maybe. But not peeling and not removing the seeds makes a perfectly decent sauce that only a Cook’s Illustrated taster would moan about.
4. Searing the meat seals in the juices
Okay, this hoary old wives’ tale is admittedly long in the tooth, but it stands to reason that no matter how brown it gets, there is no magic “force field” that is going to develop that will prevent it from losing its juices. And one thing that I am still skeptical about is the theory that if you let meat “rest” it will reabsorb its juices instead of letting them all run away by carving it immediately. Have you ever seen a steak that has “rested” for 5 minutes? There is more juice on the plate than ten seconds after it came out of the pan . . . I believe the more rational reason is that the heat can redistribute itself through the cut and possibly finish warming the last inner holdouts in the case of medium rare. Otherwise, I really don’t think that resting the thing, unless it’s a large roast, is strictly necessary.
5. Don’t wash mushrooms
One word for this theory: bullshit. Maybe for Adrian Ferra—not for the rest of us.
6. My personal pet peeve: Microwaves cook food from the inside out.
Absolute unmitigated horseshit. How many of us have tried to thaw a huge frozen block of something only to find that the outside is boiling hot but the inside is still happily glacial? There is a severe lack of knowledge among cooks about how microwaves work. I won’t pretend to be a physics expert, but I do know that microwave ovens ONLY HAVE ONE SETTING: HIGH. Yes, you read it right. All those stupid little buttons on the microwave panel that say “Defrost” or “Baked potato” are a royal crock of shit. The only setting you can mess with is how long the microwave delivers its burn. In other words, imagine boiling a cup of water. If you put it in for two minutes on maximum, the microwave will just blast away with no break for two minutes. If you put it on four minutes with Medium, the microwave will blast in precise increments, on/off, for exactly half the time. Blast, rest. Blast, rest (just listen to it one day!) The water will boil, but at twice the time.
So, there is NO “low power” microwave setting. The key ingredient is time.
And what about that myth about the ant surviving the microwave? It’s not a myth.
7. A sharp knife will prevent accidents.
Oh, how gloriously true. Witness for the prosecution: a green pepper. Witness for the defense: a dull paring knife that Grandmother used. Verdict: Emergency.
8. Let the food come to room temperature before you put it in the refrigerator
Don’t.
I’m sure you have your own kitchen myths. Post ‘em in Comments and let’s see if we can’t debunk them!
Oh, the kitchen myths...
ReplyDeleteThat one about the microwave has always killed me. The thing is, there may be some foods where that is kind of true; microwaves affect different materials differently. So, for example, if you had something like an egg, in which the yolk is more affected by the microwaves than the white, then it would kinda/sorta cook from the inside out. But (a), I don't think that's actually true of eggs, and (b) what few things it is true of are so rare as to not even be worth mentioning.
I'm pretty sure it has to do with liquid content + mass. We see quickly that a cup of water boils in about 2.5 minutes.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why anyone would want to microwave an uncooked egg--how weird is that? But since the liquid content of the shell is presumably low yet it's fairly gas-permeable, the microwaves would pretty much treat it as invisible (much like glass itself doesn't heat in the microwave, instead becoming heated by its contents.)
The thing that really bugs me about the microwave is the seeming ability of certain vessels to superheat despite having no water content.
Case in point: I recently heated what I think was just some ordinary ceramic bowl (composition unknown, but fairly rustic) with soup in it, and the bowl exploded (well, the base shattered and chips of ceramic were everywhere.)
It's hard to wrap your mind around just how microwaves work, but (shudder) the thought of what happened to that baby is just impossible to comprehend.
It has to do with water content, but other things too. For example, fats (particularly animal fats it seems) respond really quickly. Since there's more fat in the egg yolk than the white, maybe that's where the egg thing comes from.
ReplyDeleteThe "101" on microwave ovens is that the microwaves cause the molecules in the food (or whatever) to oscillate really quickly. When they oscillate they rub together, causing friction, and thus heat.
Yeah, you read that right. Microwave food is heated by friction at the molecular level.
I have no idea why that bowl exploded!
>I have no idea why that bowl exploded!
ReplyDeleteYes, it is inexplicable, but most definitely true! After all, how can something made from some presumably oven-firing process contain fats and/or moisture? And the amount that could leach into it just from the soup being in it for 30 seconds must be negligible.
I don't know if you know what a pappadum (a thin, lentil-based disc that's often called the Indian Potato Chip) is, but the way to heat it is in the microwave, on high. The funny thing is, some plates (or dishes, or bowls) get incredibly hot after 1.5 minutes on high (I mean, burn-your-fingers-in-a-microsecond-hot) yet if you do it on a paper towel, it's fine!
I think we need to call in Harold McGee for this one.
One thing springs instantly to mind. It's not a myth exactly (or not as far as I'm aware) but lots of people I know use the formula "20 minutes per pound, plus 20 minutes" when they're roasting meat. This is held to be an absolute regardless of the selected temperature of the oven or the identity of the animal supplying the carcass. The results are sometimes good and sometimes distinctly average, and so personally I prefer to keep a careful eye on a roast - only removing it when it appears to be done to my taste. Is there, as far as you know, any scientific basis for this formula?
ReplyDeleteAssisi, are you referring to cooking a roast in a microwave? I hope not . . .
ReplyDeleteSince I live alone, and when I was married there were still only two of us :) I don't do too many roasts. They are of that caliber of dish that screams "Too much hassle, too unpredictable results" (much like baking bread). And no doubt I'll be pounced upon for that statement!
I think it's dangerous to adhere to any cooking adages--they're as often debunked these days as they were invented in the past.
Grandma may have been right about some things, but personally, my parents were (and are) both lousy cooks and using any of their culinary "advice" would be as productive as trying to build a nanotube space elevator.
Roasts are a beast unto itself (though grammatically not so); I'll dare bet that there is a whole subculture somewhere that knows every last smidgen of data on how to cook one properly.
But I stay firmly in stir-fry, pan-fry, broil, stew and lovingly-massage territory.
So, can't help with the roast . . .