Secret Food Myths - Let the De-Bunking Begin!
Oh, I dunno...I'm just in one of those piss and vinegar moods. Can you relate? There are so many food myths that just drive me crazy. But I'm just going to start with my top pet peeve and YOU can list your own personal secret food myths that you deep down would love to shout to the world and DEBUNK. Don't be afraid...confession is good for the soul!
OK, here goes. My number one ripe-for-debunking myth is about pasta cookery. MYTH - In order to make good pasta you have to use about ten gallons of furiously boiling water and you MUST salt the water because the pasta will never absorb salt after cooking. Well...big surprise. The pasta comes out just great cooked in water that is just at a mere simmer when you add the pasta and you do not have to use a huge amount of water either. the pasta comes out just fine - al dente, delicious, wonderful - if you only use a couple of quarts of water for a half pound dry pasta - just stir it and all will be well. And finally, why waste all that kinda pricey sea salt salting the water - your pasta will be just as delicious (better, in fact!) if you salt the cooked pasta when it's fully cooked, or hey...don't salt it at all. Because, if your sauce is good, it's got all the salt you're going to need already, and if you HAD salted the water you might throw off the flavor profile of your oh so carefully prepared sauce and maybe wind up with an oversalted mess.
Myths - our cooking is littered with them. This is something I've been thinking about a very long time (I do cook a lot of pasta) and it took courage to share it, because many people are going to disagree. But it's a big time saver - and you'll never oversalt again. Asian noodles, to my knowledge, are not cooked in salted water, are they? And I bet a lot of other chowhounds have other secret little pet peeves about other received wisdom with which they secretly disagree. I'd love to hear them.



I vastly prefer my pasta water salted. I can really tell a difference.
Permalink | Reply
me too:) I don't like a lot of sauce on my pasta, so I like to season the pasta itself. Except for old-school, midwestern style spaghetti. You know... tomatoes, green pepper, onion, dried herbs, lots o' cheese. Then I prefer more sauce than pasta, but i still salt the water.
Permalink | Reply
i don't go for much sauce either so you want the macaroni's flavor there the bury it in sauce (gravy) is and american thing gotta make sure the pasta is dead so smother it in sauce to be sure
Permalink | Reply
Foodperv, you must be from the Northeast US of A. I have only ever heard of pasta sauce referred to as "gravy" in the NY/NJ area.
Permalink | Reply
They call spaghetti sauce "red gravy" down here in New Orleans as well.
Permalink | Reply
absolutely. i just use kosher salt though. don't know why you'd use sea salt here.
the greater amount of water allows the pasta to move around of its accord, so you don't have to stir more than once or twice.
Permalink | Reply
Yeah, me too. I don't think this one is a myth.
Permalink | Reply
1 gal water per pound of macaroni salt optional
Permalink | Reply
Count me in on bying into the salt the pasta water. As well as lots of rolling boil water to boot.
I used to use small pots and no salt. It was fine. Then I started using a large pot, lots of water and lots of salt. The pasta is much better.
The myth is, adding oil will not keep you pasta from sticking. It helps keep boil overs from happening but only lots of water for the pasta to move around in will keep it from sticking.
Sorry Nik.
DT
Permalink | Reply
Agreed!
Permalink | Reply
Harold McGee tested the oil-stopping-sticking theory and found it to be true.
Permalink | Reply
It is true, but it also keeps the sauce from sticking. I want my sauce sticking to the pasta.
Permalink | Reply
DO NOT RINSE the pasta
it will hold sauce
and if you use a touch of (i 'll use the words ) heavy strong olive oil it adds to the macaroni an added dimension of flavor
Permalink | Reply
Oil in the water can also keep the sauce from sticking. I avoid it.
Permalink | Reply
I don't find that. There isn't enough oil left over to keep it from sticking.
Besides, if you sauce you pasta, if either is hot, the sauce will be absorbed right into the pasta anyway.
DT
Permalink | Reply
Alton Brown tested it and found it not to be true.
DT
Permalink | Reply
Alton is not always right
Permalink | Reply
How do you know??
DT
Permalink | Reply
*GASP* My world is breaking apart!!
Permalink | Reply
I know!!! No, not the Great Altonator!!! He CAN'T be wrong!!!
Permalink | Reply
ALTON BROWN IS ALWAYS RIGHT. HE IS THE COOKING GOD.
YOU MUST NOW FLOG YOURSELF 100 TIMES TO REPENT
Permalink | Reply
Because Alton Brown and the folks on Mythbusters hold all pertinent knowledge in the world and thus - are always, always right .
Permalink | Reply
Oh, and don't forget America's Test Kitchen. They are right up there with Alton.
Permalink | Reply
Actually, Alton reversed himself on this. There is a newer episode where he flashes back and shows the earlier episode where he says adding olive oil is useless, and now states that it does in fact serve a great purpose.
Besides, I've spent a fair amount of my life around Italians, real Italians, and if they say salt and oil the pasta water I'm doing it.
Permalink | Reply
Lidia once said that you shouldn't add oil to the water because it keeps the sauce from sticking to the pasta. She said the key to avoid sticking was "abundant water".
Permalink | Reply
I can totally taste the difference and prefer my water salted, diamond kosher
Permalink | Reply
Salted water here, too. But I wouldn't use the expensive stuff. I keep plain table salt around for such jobs.
When I was a kid, I was told that the salt actually keeps the pasta from sticking. It seems to be true in my experience, but strangely, I've never heard anyone else say that!
Permalink | Reply
Pasta does absorb water as it cooks, yes salted does make a difference. About every chef "worth his/er salt" will say salt/season as you go along...not as a final thing.
The less water thingie...now that does depend...on what you do with it after you cook it. Immediately rinse and dump into sauce, probably no big deal...hold for a bit...well, glued, goozy mess.
BUt as always, your milage can vary..never say never. :)
Permalink | Reply
rinsing pasta is a no-no too. all the starch goes down the sink and sauce won't cling as well.
Permalink | Reply
Same effect as using lots of water, methinks...
Permalink | Reply
OK, you take a forkful of sauced pasta. You mean to say your tongue is sensitive enough to distinguish that the salt is IN the pasta and not just in the sauce. My mouth, when I take a bite of saucy pasta, immediately integrates the parts into one whole chewed up well integrated flavor. Like, you would never be chewing on some sauced up pasta and say, "Hmmmm...the sauce is fine, but I really should have put more salt into the pasta water and sadly, the pasta tastes flat, but the sauce all over it is really delicious - next time I better remember to put more salt into the pasta water." Ha.
Permalink | Reply
Absolutely my tongue is that sensitive--I am a supertaster though ;)
Permalink | Reply
with a thicker pasta, even a penne, jfood can definitelytaste the taste in the pasta. mrs jfood actually mentioned once that the pasta itself was too salty.
Permalink | Reply
Yup, sure can.
It's the same way I can tell when fish wasn't salted before cooking, even if it's been smothered in a well-salted sauce.
There's a distinct difference (for my tastebuds, anyways) between a dish where all elements were properly salted vs. one where only some were seasoned and are compensating for the unsalted parts.
Permalink | Reply
same here
Permalink | Reply
Why bother salting the sauce, either? Just take a bite of unsalted pasta with unsalted sauce, toss a pinch of salt in your mouth, and chew.
Oversalted sauce is does not adequately correct for undersalted pasta.
Permalink | Reply
Of course I can taste whether the pasta has been salted or not, and if too much. There is a marked difference in flavor.
Permalink | Reply
Yes, absolutely that's what we're saying. I think the disconnect is that you may prefer more sauce on your pasta than the folks who want their pasta salted. I like my pasta slightly undersauced the same way I like my salad slightly underdressed: I'm there for the pasta as much or more than I'm there for what's on top of it, and if the pasta is unsalted and bland, all the salt in the sauce isn't gonna make a fig's leaf worth of difference.
Permalink | Reply
I absolutely can taste whether or not pasta has been cooked in salted water. (And yes, there are times where I have oversalted the water, but this is rare.)
And I'm not a supertaster.
Permalink | Reply
In Rome we used to say, "De gustibus non disputandum est," which probably best translates to "Everyone to his own taste." However, in Rome pasta was lightly sauced, compared with what we do to it America. The sauce was a foil to the flavor of the pasta and not a substitute for it. And the pasta al dente is chewed. You would clearly get the wheat flavor of the pasta and would be able to distinguish the salt or lack of it in the cooking water.
Permalink | Reply
Niki, I can see it's a minority opinion, but I am totally with you on this. It's a waste of salt. And you gotta stir the pasta anyway, so why heat up extra gallons of water, it's not ecological.
Permalink | Reply
Have fun with this one: Eels are poison. Don't eat 'em. (My husband, of course, eats an abundance of eel sushi, and he's still with us, hale and hearty as always.)
Permalink | Reply
I love the Eel sushi, have eaten a lot of it, and I'm still alive and kicking!!
Permalink | Reply
Never heard this one
Permalink | Reply
All I can say is THANK GOD THE PASTA WATER POSTS ARE OVER!!!!!
;+)
Permalink | Reply
Hmmm I had never heard this. Perhaps eels from certain regions? I have heard you can't eat barracuda in many regions because they retain a high level of lead. You can eat it in Barbados and Bonaire though?
Permalink | Reply
I think with barracudas It's age and size that determine if they're toxic. Older barracudas have had more time to build up toxins (from poisonous prey?) and so are less safe to eat.
Permalink | Reply
Ahh I googled and kind of figured it out. Small ones sometimes ok in the Atlantic, but can be questionable, large ones bad, but apparently on the west coast the species there doesn't have the same problem? Ciguatera disease I guess comes from toxins from tropical waters. Hmm, I guess it occurs so often people just don't take a lot of chance with it on the Atlantic coast, but I have had it in Bonaire and Barbados, good thing they must have been young ones.
Permalink | Reply
thats because you don't feed him the right mushrooms to go with it lol lol
you do know i am kidding
Permalink | Reply
Celery has "negative calories". As in, celery contains less calories than calories required to chew and digest it, apparently. According to the NY Times, it may be possible to expend a few more calories than you absorb eating something like celery, but in the end the deficit is negligible. But hey, if it makes you feel virtuous, go crazy and eat a ton.
Permalink | Reply
Works great as a diet. Celery stuffed with peanut butter, celery stuffed with cheese, celery stuffed with devilled eggs, etc. Negative calories, but you still feel like you've eaten!
Permalink | Reply
That's because you HAVE eaten peanut butter, cheese, and mayonaise-y eggs! Guess that puts it back on the positive side...
Permalink | Reply
I vote we just have the peanut butter, cheese, and egg goo, and feed the celery to the rabbits. I'd lose a ton of weight on any diet that requires me to eat raw celery, because I won't eat it. Don't care what you stuff it with.
Permalink | Reply
Favorite story. Decided to riff on the traditional Thanksgiving dinner for extended family. (For example, the main dish was a partially deboned and butterflied turkey, broil-roasted and re-formed around a core of stuffing to look like a bird that had never been cut.) One side dish was a take on pimiento-cheese-stuffed celery (double Gloucester, homemade mayo, fire-roasted red cherry peppers). My (now-ex) sister-in-law had nothing to say about the rest of the meal, but commented that it was the "best Cheez-Whiz she'd ever had."
Permalink | Reply
I'm eating celery sticks for lunch right now (thank heavens, I also had other stuff!) and let me tell you, definitely not as satisfying as a pizza. for weight-loss wonder foods, I think cabbage trumps celery any day.
Permalink | Reply
I can't deal with the strings. And the flavor's just too strong. Cook it, fine. But don't make me eat it raw.
Permalink | Reply
Please do your co-workers a favorite--do not eat cabbage for lunch. Not unless you have a pint of beano to go with it.
Permalink | Reply
I learned the same thing about hard boiled eggs - but only hard boiled. Wonder how long you would have to eat celery and hard boiled eggs before you actually lost weight. I wonder if snopes covers this?
they do discuss celery, so I guess it's not a myth
http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient...
Permalink | Reply
So "Celery has "negative calories" is not a myth. Even if the "deficit is negligible" it is still a deficit.
Permalink | Reply
while not 100% on the mark it is fairly close close enough to help fill you without adding any serious amt of cal
Permalink | Reply
How about the sushi related myth that if you sprinkle lemon juice on your sushi parasites come "running" out. When I first heard this I tried it a few times and nothing happened. Thank God, because I lveo sushi!
Permalink | Reply
Food myth: yogurt is only good for a week beyond the expiration date. Especially if it's kept cold, my experience is that you can eat it for up to a month after. BUT obviously you should take a small bite before you dig in, since everyone's fridge is different.
Permalink | Reply
I'll add to that...If you keep the container upside down, it stays fresher longer, as oxygen is limited...I've done a side-by-side comparisson and found the one right side up moldy, and the one upside down, fine.
Permalink | Reply
This works for cottage cheese too. If you have opened the container and dished some out, close it up again, turn it upside down, and give it a firm "bam" on the counter before putting it back in the 'fridge. The cottage cheese will form its own seal and stay fresher a LOT longer.
Permalink | Reply
I've had some about 5-6 weeks past the expiration date and they've been fine.
Permalink | Reply
ditto as long as it ain't mouldy it (seems ok)
Permalink | Reply
I don't know that it's so much that it's only "good" for a week, but the live cultures are more effective the sooner you eat it.
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/columnnn/nn051027.html
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUME...
Permalink | Reply
Hmmmnnn...my brother unwittingly bought a ~10-days-past-due yogurt drink at a grocery store and drank it in the car on his way home for the holidays last year. It was most definitely NOT ok - he was mighty sick for about 12 hours. Granted, you can't know if the grocery stored it properly, but I've taken to throwing out yogurt on the date on the package ever since, as the risk is not worth $2 for me .
Permalink | Reply
What do those yogurt drinks add to make them drink-consistency? My guess would be that *that's* what went bad and made your brother sick. But, I'm certainly no expert.
Permalink | Reply
I think that the addition to yogurts to make them drink consistency is actually less of the stuff that makes yogurt as solid as most yogurt we are used to. My senior year in college I boarded with a couple who had a friend who made his own yogurt (at the university where he worked, as I recall). It was thinner in consistency that the drinkable yogurt I bought at my co-op earlier this year.
As for the yogurt that was about 10 past its sell-by date, was it ever positively determined that the yogurt was really the cause of his gastric distress?
Permalink | Reply
guys this isn't rocket science, they add water to make yogurt drinks a drinkable consistency. Yogurt drink is a classic Armenian/Near Eastern drink, we just take some yogurt, mix it up with some water, salt it, and add maybe mint or parsely. Of course it will separate over time so in the commercial drinks they use a stabilizer. Then again the commercial drinks could be made from a mix of yogurt AND whey and other dairy products - check the ingredients list.
Permalink | Reply
Some years ago I read that a test kitchen did comparison testing, and for most pastry, preheating the oven vs. putting a cake/pie/cookie into a cold oven showed no difference in the result. Prolly not true for souffles, though.
Permalink | Reply
How about the myth that certain shellfish (shrimp and lobster) are high in cholesterol, recently promulgated by judges on Top Chef. These items actually have less cholesterol than boneless, skinless chicken breasts.
Permalink | Reply
that's the good cholesterol vs. bad cholesterol confusion.
Permalink | Reply
There is no "good cholesterol" or "bad cholesterol" there is only cholesterol. There are "good fats" and "bad fats", and it is actually fat in the diet that impacts your cholesterol levels.
Monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats are "good" fats, saturated fats are "bad fats". Meats tend to contain saturated fats more than unsaturated while plant sources of fats (nuts, avocados, olive oil) tend to be monounsaturated fats.
Permalink | Reply
Right- there's good vs. bad cholesterol when it comes to reading your bloodwork. LDL = bad, HDL = good. But in terms of what affects that cholesterol, it mainly comes down to "good" vs. "bad" fats as Morganna explained. (Though researchers are trying to tease out the distinction between the different kinds of "bad" fats, like saturated fat coming from coconuts vs. animal sources....)
Permalink | Reply
And let's mention the role of genetics and metabolism. I know someone who went on a very, very strict diet with regard to fats and the effect on their cholesterol levels was negligible.
Permalink | Reply
This happened to me. Nothing would budge my cholesterol level though I was making a very serious and successful effort to eat low/no fats. I don't think my doctor believed me.
Permalink | Reply
I used to take the slow-release garlic tablets (odorless) from Trader Joe's and it really did lower my cholesterol.
Also, a friend of mine has an uncle who swears his cholesterol went down drastically by juicing celery (he would add other veggies to make it taste better) and drinking it.
Permalink | Reply
Well, speaking of myths! The October 2007 Elle magazine claims that carbohydrates, not fats, raise the bad cholesterol and cause heart attacks. But they don't clearly explain how this supposedly works. They also say carbs cause cancer. And make you fat. I agree with some of this, but regardless of their veracity, I am just thrilled with the outrageousness of these claims.
Permalink | Reply
All carbs, even whole grains? That's outrageous, yes. I have read that excessive intake of simple carbs, the refined ones, can up the production of LDL.
Permalink | Reply
He seemed to be saying that refined carbs, sugar, and high-index starchy vegetables such as potatoes are the worst for you, whole grains are medium bad, and low-index carbs such as berries are best, but the article was vague.
Permalink | Reply
Must be simple carbs. My friend's otherwise healthy mom with good cholesterol had a heart attack after downing a big jamba juince--it was just loaded with simple carbs and an excess of their energy additive. The doctor apparently said they're seeing more and more of this type of thing.
Permalink | Reply
i believe that. the amount of sugar in some drinks is disgusting, probably much more in the jamba juice than in the equivalent soda.
Permalink | Reply
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage...
Highlights:
"The evidence that dietary fat correlates with heart disease ''does not stand up to critical examination,'' the American Heart Association concluded in 1957."
"With skeptical scientists ostracized, the public debate and research agenda became dominated by the fat-is-bad school. Later the National Institutes of Health would hold a ''consensus conference'' that concluded there was ''no doubt'' that low-fat diets ''will afford significant protection against coronary heart disease'' for every American over the age of 2. The American Cancer Society and the surgeon general recommended a low-fat diet to prevent cancer.
But when the theories were tested in clinical trials, the evidence kept turning up negative. As Mr. Taubes notes, the most rigorous meta-analysis of the clinical trials of low-fat diets, published in 2001 by the Cochrane Collaboration, concluded that they had no significant effect on mortality."
"Mr. Taubes argues that the low-fat recommendations, besides being unjustified, may well have harmed Americans by encouraging them to switch to carbohydrates, which he believes cause obesity and disease."
Permalink | Reply
Thanks for posting this. It made me do a little research, as my husband has a family history of heart disease and loves shrimp. While shrimp do have cholesterol, at least one study says it does not seem to have a bad effect on our cholesterol levels.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/...
Permalink | Reply
Do you have a reference for this handy?
Permalink | Reply
This is a very good and completely sensible question. I don't have any handy citations for this because the research I did in this area was a good ten to twelve years ago when I was first having cholesterol problems. I was just researching with medical journals and reading studies about the impact of dietary fats on cholesterol levels. There is a great resource for tracking down medical journal articles called pubmed. It's free, and I've had great success using it to find information about a wide variety of medical research topics. My stated opinion isn't worth much so I'd ask you to look into it further by doing a bit more googling or looking at pubmed. Sorry I didn't have a citation handy for you! :)
Permalink | Reply
My mom is tiny and eats very healthy and exercises all the time and her cholesterol is over 300! Ours is definitely hereditary!
Permalink | Reply
I'm the opposite - I love a good steak, eat eggs nearly daily (I have to eat at least 10 eggs a week), and my cholesterol is, as my doctor likes to say, picture-perfect. All my grandparents lived to be over 85, and I figure that's got to have something to do with it (one used to eat an entire pound of bacon at breakfast...)
Permalink | Reply
Absolutely! My grandmother on my dad's side has one way of preparing meat which she learned from her mother: she heats up about 1.5 inches of lard or shortening in an electric frying pan and then fries the crud out of whatever meat she's serving. Apparently, her many sisters and brothers all cook their meat the same way. She also loves lathering huge amounts of margarine on everything she eats. All of her siblings are alive and she's the youngest of them at 89. I think just recently her cholesterol measured as slightly high for the first time ever.
I frequently eat insane amounts of butter and bacon, and my cholesterol is excellent.
Permalink | Reply
I'M JEALOUS! I can watch what I eat and it stays right up there...soon to take little pill.
Sad.
Permalink | Reply
'I think just recently her cholesterol measured as slightly high for the first time ever.'
well she better start cutting down on the bad fats -:)
Permalink | Reply
my old man ate for as long as i can remember 2 doz eggs a week his level was under 200 all the time
Permalink | Reply
Famously, eggs contain high amounts of cholesterol, but this does not mean that they raise the cholesterol in your blood. That's a totally different matter. Eggs have recently been declared healthy again by mainstream nutritionists. And some people now claim that red meat is just fine for you, but it's carbs that cause heart attacks -- either by scaring tissue when blood sugar levels rise or by raising triglyceride levels in the blood or both. Actually, that's pretty mainstream too. But the idea that red meat is harmless is still considered fringe.
Permalink | Reply
In three years, they'll have all new theories on everything and will have debunked most of the current notions we have about food nutrition.
Moderation always seems to be the one constant, but it appears to be difficult for people to understand and follow. I know that as soon as the declarations that green tea is good for you was made, many people in my workplace started drinking heroic quantities of it through the day. I'm sure that green tea *is* good for you, but I'm hesitant to accept that 12 cups of it aren't without danger. Anyone else remember the soy craze, too? *headdesk*
Permalink | Reply
Actually, further to moderation is a "Balanced diet." Not one loaded up on one thing or another.
Of course, if you want to lose weight and avoid a heart attack, start exercising. That, as much as anything, is what's wrong with NA people nowadays.
DT
Permalink | Reply
That is actually not true - at least according to Calorie King.com. According to their database, Shrimp has 55 mg of cholesterol in 1 ounce and boneless, skinless chicken breast has 15 per ounce.
Permalink | Reply
Preheating is absolutely not a myth. If you are going to cook something for 10 minutes and it takes the oven 7 minutes to come to temperature - you do the math.
Permalink | Reply
You may have to leave the item in the oven longer, but I think the point of the testing was that you get the same results (i.e., cake rose the same height, etc.) once it was at the desired state of doneness.
Permalink | Reply
Yeah but it would be a lot harder to gauge when the item is done. And opening the oven to check is a no-no for many baked items.
Starting the baking at a specific temperature just makes it easier (and quicker) to get to the desired state of doneness.
Permalink | Reply
The point of the thread is food myths. The myth is that you must pre-heat your oven in order to have your baked goods turn out correctly is not true. Since oven temps vary anyway, you have to test for doneness before removing your cake/pie/tart in most cases anyway.
Permalink | Reply
Preheating is not a myth. Most baked goods use either yeast or chemical leavening, and both get "spring" from a hot oven. I'd like to know what test kitchen came up with preheating as a myth, MR. I doubt they're reputable.
Permalink | Reply
It was more than 10 years ago that I read this, so I can't recall, but I'll see if I can find reference to it.
Permalink | Reply
Whoever made this argument seems to have made some sort of intellectual point that is a) not practical for baking, and b) just plain wrong for more delicate baked items such as cakes.
The leavening issue raised by amyzan is legit, and in addition it seems to me that any mixture with whipped egg whites or double-acting baking powder in it could well lose some of its initial bulk (i.e. air bubbles) as its sits in an oven waiting for the heat to reach the desired temperature. You generally want to get these mixtures into a hot oven as quickly as possible after mixing them.
Permalink | Reply
Yeah, but how hard is it to pre-heat the oven? A lot easier than figuring out how much longer your cake has to bake to compensate for putting it into a cold oven and then turning on the heat. Why would you ever want to?
Permalink | Reply
And preheating an oven before putting bread, which needs that initial heat for oven spring, is a must.
Permalink | Reply
That can't be true. My oven takes about 15 minutes to come to temp. You cannot tell me that won't have an effect on a cake.
Permalink | Reply
I have a hard time with this one. I can't imagine a cookie turning out the same when placed in a cold oven as opposed to a preheated one. Wouldn't the shortening begin melting before the surface firmed up, causing the cookie to spread all over the sheet? My intuition tells me so, but I supposed I could try it and find out.
Permalink | Reply
Here is a myth: Curry is an Indian dish.
In India there is no such thing as a dish paralling what the rest of the world thinks of as "curry." There is a curry plant that produces a leaf used as a seasoning in S. Asian cooking (called curry leaf) and there is a N. Indian/Indo-Pak dish called karee which is a sour yoghurt and chick pea flour based gravy that has a few karee leaves in it, and usually it has pakoras in it (karee pakora) but I have heard some places in India have varieties w/out the pakoras. What the rest of the world calls curry, S. Asians call "gravy" in their respective languages and gravy dishes are opposite to dry dishes that don't have a liquidy gravy.
Curry powders, such as the turmeric based spice mixes (that don't even contain karee leaves!) used widely in Western and also East Asian cuisine (I have had versions from American to Japanese to Vietnamese) are adaptations, I presume spead around the world after the British raj. Interestingly, these spice mixes have found their way on to S. Asian shelves. I own a box of the famed Pakistani Shaan Masala brand Curry spice mix and use it in a tomato based gravy dish that I casually call chicken curry, but it should probably really be called masala chicken or something! There are many British born "curries" that have become part of national cuisine and are Asian inspired or served in Anglicized Indian restaurants...so while I would say that curry is a linguistic misnomer, in the modern world there is a genre of world-Indian cuisine that has dishes labled "curry" and I would have my head in the sand if I stuck to my linguistic purism here.
But in India there is no true dish called "curry" at all.
Permalink | Reply
Interesting post, Luckyf!
What's funny is that all my Indian cookbooks (Sahni, Jaffrey, Merchant, Devi) have recipes for "curry powder"....probably because their readers would be puzzled if there were no such recipes.
Also we have the chicken tikka masala that is said to have been invented in London when somebody put a sauce over the tikka. It's said that there's no such dish in India....although it has probably traveled there by now!
Permalink | Reply
I to have heard that chicken tikka masala is from London. The story goes (taken from Cooks Illustrated a month or so ago), that someone in an India resturant in London did not like his dish and sent it back, the cook made some quick sause up and reserved the meal, thus inventing the tikka masala.
Permalink | Reply
What about the claim of a friend of mine from New Jersey that the pizza was invented there and taken back to Italy?
Permalink | Reply
Cooking pasta in plenty of salted water is not a myth. Pasta cooked in unsalted water tastes flat no matter what the sauce is like. Cooking pasta in plenty of water prevents it from being gummy and starchy.
Permalink | Reply
It's a matter of preference. The Chinese people have boiled noodles in unsalted water for centuries; we don't think our noodles taste "flat."
Permalink | Reply
I don't consider Chinese noodles served in a Chinese style and Italian pasta served Italian style to be the same thing at all. Not even close.
Permalink | Reply
Agreed. The naked noodles (Chinese vs Italian) taste completely differently, even if based on wheat.
Permalink | Reply
i agree there, asian cultures use alot more diff kinds of grains for their noodles, and even the wheat based use diff formulas and diff types of wheat
i never met an asian noodle i did not like
Permalink | Reply
Also, I boil my noodles in half the recommended amount of water and find there is no difference.
Permalink | Reply
I have no idea how much water I use, I fill the pasta pot, add salt (not measured either) boil, cook pasta, drain and eat...
the only problem I have is with angel hair, which I should make it's own post, no matter how I cook it it comes out gummy and in a big lump....
Permalink | Reply
Try stirring the angel hair every few minutes as it cooks with a long for, especially right after you throw the pasta in the pot. In the *old* days, that's how all pasta was cooked. Thrown into rapidly boiling, salted water, and stirred every now and then till it was al dente....in an uncovered pan. Nowadays, we do let the water reach the boil, sometimes we add salt, but we now cover the pan, stirring every once in a while during the cooking process.
Permalink | Reply
Errr,,,,,, Try stirring with a long *fork*. That'll do it. : )
Permalink | Reply
Do most people really cover the pan while cooking pasta? I keep the lid on to facilitate it boiling faster, but once the water is boiling and the pasta is in, I've always kept the lid off and stirred frequently.
Permalink | Reply
I put the lid on to bring it back to a boil after adding the pasta, and then often leave the lid partially covering the pot - maybe it is my stove, but often the water goes down to a simmer, and this way it keeps aboil, so to speak
Permalink | Reply
My mother would *never* leave the lid on after throwing the macaroni....said it would cause the water to boil over. But for the last several years we have put the lid on with no adverse effects. No boiling over, seems to be quicker cooking as well. I read it somewhere.....can't remember where, of course.
We still stir every now and then, though.
Permalink | Reply
Putting on the lid after adding the pasta helps the water to quickly retun to a boil. You can take the lid off again once it does.
Permalink | Reply
Maybe you need better pasta? Because my angel hair cooks itself in 2 minutes. I use de Cecco.
Here's my contribution to the pasta "myth" ... I do believe in boiling, do believe in salting (I use regular iodized salt from the canister, fleur de sel is for finishing but I don't use it on pasta). It can be overdone ... I eyeball it.
I just realized that I match the size of the pot to the size of the pasta. I'll use a little sauce pan to cook a single serving of baby pasta (like farfalline), and it comes out just fine. But if I'm cooking big corkscrews (proper name??), then that requires a bigger pot and lots of water.
Permalink | Reply
hmmm, maybe i'll try another brand, I think the last couple of batches have been barilla? I do stir it a lot so I know that is not the problem...I've even tossed with a bit of evoo right after draining and that didnt' work either...
Permalink | Reply
Maybe you're overcooking? A pasta as thin as cappellini is especially susceptible to heat carry-over; if you drain at al dente, it may be a soggy mass by the time it hits the table. "Done in the pan is overdone on the plate."
Try draining very fine pasta when extremely al dente, then stir into the sauce over low heat. The sauce penetrates the pasta very nicely, and sticking is largely eliminated. But remember to pull it off the heat before it's fully cooked and let the thermal mass of the dish take care of the rest.
Permalink | Reply
Me, too!! I also have trouble with gummy angel hair, and I always am careful not to overcook.
But I wonder if we're actually slightly overcooking it anyway - you know how they say to take it off the heat and drain about a minute before it's done?
Maybe it's even more sensitive time-wise with angel hair.
Anyone know?
Oh, ok, I see the other reply posts. I'm going to try just cooking my angel hair about 2 minutes and see if that works.
Thanks.
Permalink | Reply
Yeah, 2 minutes tops for angel hair. That's what the instructions on the box say.
Permalink | Reply
kinda like just threaten the angel hair that you are going to throw it in water it whimps and limps out
Permalink | Reply
HAHA. I'm having it for lunch today. I'll try that next time.
Permalink | Reply
Cooking dried fettuccine and keeping it from sticking is very difficult if there isn't enough water.
Permalink | Reply
In my experience, the water amount has to do with fresh vs dry pasta. I don't notice any trouble with cooking dry pasta in a bit of simmering water (as long as I give it a couple of stirs when it's first getting started) but fresh pasta needs a bunch of water and a rapid boil to avoid the whole gummy mess scenario.
Permalink | Reply
I also put a little bit of oil in the water when I cook fresh pasta - which I did read about in some Italian cook book. I think it makes a big difference, especially with ravioli - so they don't stick together and then break apart letting the cheese ooze out.
Permalink | Reply
That's interesting.....I was told that oil preventing pasta sticking is a myth because the oil just floats on the top and can't really get between the pasta strands to prevent sticking. However, oil is supposed to help prevent boiling over of pasta water because it increases the surface tension of a pot of water.
If it works for you, though, I say do it! I rarely cook fresh pasta, so I'm wondering if there's something that makes oil in cooking water more useful for preventing sticking if using fresh pasta vs. dried pasta.....?
Permalink | Reply
I was told not to use oil because the oil will coat the pasta, preventing your sauce from adhering as you'd like.
Permalink | Reply
Right - that is my understanding as well - but with fresh pasta - and really, all I cook occasionally is cheese ravioli to which I add a brown butter and sage sauce - I've had the sticking problem and this seems to work.
Permalink | Reply
Have you tried lightly dusting your ravioli with flour? It makes your water a littly gloppy, but I don't find that I have a sticking problem with fresh ravioli and I tend to do this (not intentionally, but the sides of my pasta sheets that are on the counter are dusted with flour to prevent sticking to the counter; those sides end up being the outside of the raviolis).
Permalink | Reply
I know that many people aren't fans of the flavors, but we are entering serious pumpkin, sweet potato, and butternut squash ravioli season... I think brown butter and sage sauce was made for these combos. If you can find good fresh ravioli with these fillings, give it a try. Traditionally, I like some black pepper and parmiggiano with it, but sometimes I sprinke the dish with amaretti crumbs. It's good.
EDIT- I mean "sprinkle"
Permalink | Reply
Brown butter and sage sauce is one of my very favorites. I forget about these wonderful things, but now I am going to go to our wonderful Italian store and pick up their delicious wild mushroon ravioli and have a perfect dinner. Their pumpkin ravioli is also great. Thanks for the reminder!!
Permalink | Reply
Sounds fabulous. Do you have a recipe you can share?
Permalink | Reply
My biggest pet-peeve (sort of food) myth is one that was actually promulgated by a friend's science teacher. This brain-dead woman actually told her class that warm water will freeze faster than cold water. I've heard this in different circles over the past several years, and it is absolutely not true. I've also heard the flip-side myth - that cold water boils faster than hot. Completely ridiculous. Who starts these things?
Permalink | Reply
Actually warmer water can freeze faster than cold water under certain conditions. It's called the Mpemba effect. As I learnt it, it is an effect of evaporation (which is endothermic) in the hot water sample and supercooling in the cold water sample, but reviewing the research shows that there's no single unifying theory as to why the effect is observed.
Permalink | Reply
Yes, I learned this in a high school physics class too. It's really not worth using warm water to make ice cubes though, and there are some very set temperature limitations...for example, near boiling water will not freeze faster than luke warm, etc.
Permalink | Reply
I've seen this on a science show. There is a situation out there where it will freeze faster. The thing is, the circumstances are so minute, you'd be hard pressed to replicate it. It also wasn't like the warm water was much warmer and it didn't freeze appreciably faster.
DT
Permalink | Reply
my ex-step-father told me this once. i remembered it and just thought he was a science-idiot!
Permalink | Reply
Yes, under special conditions the Mpemba effect works. However under normal kitchen conditions, you're better off putting cold water in your ice cube tray. Warm water doesn't freeze faster, though maybe very, very hot water does (due to evaporation.)
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/...
Permalink | Reply
I've also heard that one reason for this is that hot water has more dissolved "stuff" in it (from pipes, etc.) than cold. Those grains of "whatever" form the nucleus for the ice, thus hot water freezes faster than cold.
Permalink | Reply
Aha! This is what my husband claims and will never use hot water to make coffee, etc. It actually sounds right. Not the part about the freezing, the part about the "stuff" in the pipes.
Permalink | Reply
I seem to remember Alton Brown's show on coffee explaining why it's better to use cold water to brew coffee, but I can't recall the reason.
Cold water does have less "stuff" in it from the pipes, so is better for cooking as it doesn't impart as many icky flavors.
Permalink | Reply
The residue in hot water pipes is from many, many generations ago, prior to more modern pipe materials. No difference in today's homes. Now, maybe if you still have piping from 100 years ago. . . .
Permalink | Reply
Many, many homes (most?) still have lead soldered pipe joints. Lead content in solder (and faucets, etc.) was only regulated post 1986. For this reason (among others) it is still recommended that you flush the line with cold water before drinking it.
For heating water, I use an electric kettle anytime I need to boil water. I can get a whole gallon boiling in just a few minutes or so and it doesn't heat my kitchen up in the summer.
Permalink | Reply
Hehe, MY piping is that old! I always start with cold water when cooking since they are so ancient!!
Permalink | Reply
It's not from the "pipes." It's from the sediment in the hot water heater! But if you have one of those "on demand" energy efficient hot water heaters they've been using in Europe for fifty years, then no problem with sediment from the hot water tank. Or you can have one of those "instant hot water" taps added to your sink.
Damned if I'll have hot water piped to my icemaker though!
Permalink | Reply
In the case of our house in the US it WAS the pipes. Our pipes were copper, but the city pipes in the street and leading from the street to our building are lead. And it did cause us to have dangerously high levels of lead in our water. According to the tests that the water authority and EPA did, after flushing the line, the levels were still too high, but much less so than before running the water a few minutes. When in doubt, ask your water authority to test.
Permalink | Reply
And the water company to change your water lines! Didn't the EPA step in? On YOUR side!
Permalink | Reply
Yeah, they'll get right on it....after they clean up all the super fund sites they haven't started on yet.
Thanks for the info about the hot water sediment. My husband has always made a big point about this and finally converted me.
Permalink | Reply
Because we had an infant in our house, the water authority gave us a Brita water filter with a few free filters...
I no longer live in this house (we're renting it out), but the problem was apparently exacerbated by the fact that the city (DC) changed to a new form of chlorination after 9/11 to avoid the possibility of terrorist attacks on big chlorine tanks (I think, going on memory here). This new method caused the old lead pipes to lose the coating of calcification that formed a barrier between the lead and the water. I remember having little white flakes in our water for several months when they did this (which I reported several times, never getting any explanation). After the high lead levels were exposed months later, the EPA got involved and the city eventually did something else to (supposedly) coat the pipes again.
This was about three years ago--around the time when we left. The city still hasn't replaced all of the lead pipes in the street. They have committed to do so by 2015. We're still waiting for them to do this on our street so that we can change the little pipe that goes from the street to our house.
You can read more about it here:
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/Water/us/...
Permalink | Reply
In this day and age, I think in-home water filtration is critical. For a couple of decades now I've used a Pur filter at my kitchen sink, then when I bought a new fridge, it requires new filters on a regular basis. Now I'm in the throes of a kitchen remodel (will I be able to cook Thanksgiving dinner? Stay tuned!) and I stupidly (or wisely) chose a new single hole faucet with a pull-out hose, which means I can no longer use the kitchen tap filter. So I'm going to finally break down and do the smart thing by installing a whole house filter. Drinkable water everywhere, even in the toilets if I had a dog! <g> Overall, I don't think i'ts going to be that expensive when I take into consideration 4 filters a year for the fridge at $17 each, and the same for the tap filter, and I'm restricted to drawing water for drinking from only two taps. Think of being able to brush your teeth AND drink without a pitcher of water from the kitchen! .
The city keeps sending me test results on how potable city water is, but the reports are always on last month's water. Last week they put in a new water main. How clean is my water after that? I think I'm going to be very happy with the whole house filter!
Permalink | Reply
I agree with you. If I were still in our old house, I would do the same and get a whole-house filter. The thing is that the city's tests don't test the water coming out of your faucet. In DC the water authority's tests always came back fine, too. That's because the water was tested before it went through the old lead pipes in the street.
I'm not terribly prone to paranoia, but after seeing the response (or lack thereof) I have lost trust in the EPA's ability to ensure that Americans have clean drinking water. The infrastructure is in much worse shape than anyone is letting on.
Permalink | Reply
Myth: searing meat seals in the juices.
Permalink | Reply
You are absolutely correct! Searing meats actually reduces the juices (somewhat), but can add a great deal of flavor from the browning. So, sear, but don't think the meat will be 'juicier'
Permalink | Reply
Oh! I believed this one and have even passed it on to the young ones. Good to know.
Permalink | Reply
I think it was America's Test Kitchen that recently did a show on this. They weighed the 2 pieces of meat prior to cooking, cooked one by popping in the oven and the other by searing on the stove top and then in the oven, and then they weighed the finished product. Both weighed the same after cooking. They said this showed that no juices were lost in the cooking of the first piece of meat. I think that's the way the argument went. I was totally surprised since I had learned this apparent-canard as well.
Permalink | Reply
Alrighty then - how to proceed? Hot pan, service side up, cook for a few minutes, turn, repeat? What>>
Permalink | Reply
Sure. The searing induces the Maillard reaction, giving you flavor. Then, for very thick pieces, the oven to get the meat cooked as you like without burning the outer parts. The internal liquids are not affected by searing or not.
We have an Argentianian cook on one of our elgourmet.com TV programs who is always going on about, "Vamos a sejjar (sellar) la carne." Fortuantely, we've also had a Catalonian (Borja) who really knows his stuff and who de-bunked the myth. Kind of our Alton Brown.
Permalink | Reply
I have to "weigh in" terrible pun intended on the fact that I have a pork tenderloin recipe that my husband and I love. It can be found on epicurious. However, I have tried it, skipping the whole pan searing and just baking it. The taste was totally different, and not nearly as good. I will continue to pan sear regardless of the other conclusions!
Permalink | Reply
Again, yes, searing will induce the Maillard reaction, giving you what is akin to caramelization and much better flavor. But you will not be "sealing in" the juices.
Permalink | Reply
Yup. I made a beef daube last night for ten people and took time to brown every cube of chuck. It was a simple dish, but much more time consuming than some "gourmet" entrees, but what a difference that Maillard reaction makes!
Permalink | Reply
Sam is right. It will taste better but tasting better and actually sealing in juices are two separate things.
DT
Permalink | Reply
sam, yes, that is a good myth
Permalink | Reply
Spinach and tofu cannot be eaten together (or in the same meal), because apparently there's some acidic substance in spinach which coagulates with the calcium in tofu to form some kind of bits that may potentially stay in your kidney (kidney stones).
Permalink | Reply
is this a myth or a truth? sorry for being so daft, but it jeopardizes my new favorite Blockheads meal, the spinach-and-tofu quesadilla...I'm rather concerned here...
Permalink | Reply
So this is a myth? Good because i love my spinach / tofu phyllo pie....
Permalink | Reply
so does this mean we should be avoiding creamed spinach for the same reason? there has to be calcium in a cream sauce.......
as far as kidney stones go, my mom, dad, brother, and I ate pretty much the same diet as each other. My dad and brother have both had kidney stones, my mom and I not. Go figure.
Permalink | Reply
It depends on what your kidney stones are made of. If you pass one they can analyze it and tell you. Oxylate is a common constituent of kidney stones, and spinach is very high in oxylate. Maybe that's where the myth came from. Calcium isn't the only bad guy re kidney stones.
Permalink | Reply
I believe its the oxalic acid in spinach, swiss chard, and other foods that locks up the calcium and keeps it from being absorbed by the body.
"Coagulation"? not so sure about that.
Permalink | Reply
I was taught that if you add vinegar to a stew or anything already cooking, you cannot stir it otherwise you will have the strong taste of vinegar. That just smacks of mythology right there (though I've never tested my hypothesis).
Permalink | Reply
I have unintentionally tested it. When I make a belgian carbonadde, I do add a little bit of red wine vinegar after it has cooked for a bit. I stir it after, and it has never tasted vinegary.
Permalink | Reply
Since I never add vinegar to any dish that I don't want to have a taste of vinegar, I don't know if this is correct or a myth. One of my favorite dishes is a daube made with chicken, tarragon, vinegar and wine....the vinegar is added while dish is cooking and the taste is great. Not too strong, but some folks might not like the vinegar taste at all and it'd therefore be too strong.
Permalink | Reply
Any food myth having to do with chocolate...especially, "chocolate makes you break out".
Permalink | Reply
it is true too much chocolate makes you break out........ of your pants lol
Permalink | Reply
I'm with you Niki. We're in the midst of a terrible drought down here and I've been subconsciously cutting back on the amount of water I fill my pasta pot with all summer long. No difference. I always put a pinch of salt in but I'm starting to think it's all in my head. The only thing that effects the quality of my pasta is the amount of time I let it boil.
Permalink | Reply
Just as a note for the drought conditions.... If it's not too much trouble for you, and if you have a double sink, you should keep a big bowl on one side. Keep your drained water and water plants with it. It's amazing how many trips outside with that bowl you'll have... rinsing fruits and veggies over the bowl, quick rinsing of your hands (no soap), rinsing my coffee pot... There's so much water with nothing more than organic matter going down the drain. That water can be used twice!
Permalink | Reply
I think that if you have salted the water, you may not want to water tender plants with it. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember a natural way to kill weeds was spray them with salted water.
Permalink | Reply
Yes, there are thousands of myths but yours is not one of them. Sorry. Pasta does cook much better in lots of water and salted water does impart a savory flavor to the pasta.
Permalink | Reply
Exactly. I am sure you can do fine with less water if you sit there stirring the entire time, but if not less water =more pasta to past contact. so like a junior prom you need more water to act as chaperone
Permalink | Reply
what about washing meat first?
maybe its just me.......but my family never washed their meat before cooking. i feel cooking to the proper temperture kills any bacteria. my MIL? she freaks if i cook anything before washing, she feels that by not doing so will result in food poisoning. i dunno if its cultural or an age thing........maybe its even just her, or maybe its me?! but i don't wash meat....
Permalink | Reply
The new thinking on washing meat before cooking is that it actually puts folks at an *increased* risk of food poisoning. Splashing raw meat tainted water all over leads to a better chance of cross-contamination.
OK, don't take it from me, a vegetarian, how about from the USDA:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/...
Permalink | Reply
Makes sense, but... Am I the only one who uses surgical gloves when handling/dicing,repackaging meats and poultry? It's a LOT easier than trying to figure out whether you've suds your hands long enough to kill bacteria. Just throw the little suckers in the trash with the gloves!
Permalink | Reply
Once again (only partially kidding here) I subscribe to the George Carlin theory of food contamination: Eat anything that drops on the floor. You need to keep your immune system in shape and good workouts like this will do just that.
Permalink | Reply
LOL! Yeah, I'm not so great with the "overly cautious" handling of food either. Won't eat it off of the floor though...:-) I've never been sick from food poisoning though. *shrugs* Maybe it was all that rotten food that we ate growing up.
Permalink | Reply
oops..one more. "never lift the lid of the crockpot while cooking"
not true............i have, on occaision, lifted the the lid.....just to see what will happen. nothing happens! it doesn't slow down the cooking time, nor does it make any difference in flavour or texture.
Permalink | Reply
right all it does is spread the wonderful aroma of what your cooking around the house
and even if it did add 5 min to the cooking time the aroma around the house would still be worth it
Permalink | Reply
How about the old saw about not washing mushrooms because they will soak up too much water? Total nonsense. They are full of water to begin with so unless they were dehydrated they are not soaking up water. I have tested it on an electronic scale so I know it is not true. Also with Morels it is an absolute must soaking helps rid them of bugs and dirt.
Permalink | Reply
agree, i always wash mushrooms.........don't you know what those things are grown in!
Permalink | Reply
Alton Brown did a show on food myths, and this was one he tested. Similar methodology--weighing the mushrooms after a soak, and he also concluded they didn't soak up a significant amount of water.
Permalink | Reply
yes, we also pray at the altar of Alton and his foodie science.
As long as you don't soak the mushrooms for a long time you are good. But like anything porous, if left in water, it will absorb it after a while.
Permalink | Reply
Actually, what AB found was all the water it's gonna soak up, it soaks up immediately. Which ended up as something like 5% more weight.
My feeling on this is, if you're gonna cook them, who cares, all that extra water will evaporate out anyway.
DT
Permalink | Reply
I was only told that washing button mushrooms darkens their skin... and the chef who told me that was such a nazi that I've never tried it. True? (Admittedly beside the point anyway if the mushies will be cooked.)
Permalink | Reply
Alton Brown did a really fun-to-watch show on cooking myths. This was one he de-bunked via electronic scales and various soaking times for mushrooms. Jacque Pepin also acknowledges that rinsing mushrooms will not cause the world to end.
And unsalted/skimpy amounts of pasta water will give you edible pasta... just won't be nearly as good as pasta cooked with ample, salted water.
Permalink | Reply
Oh Lordy - I absolutely have to swish all mushrooms in water before cooking - and especially before eating them raw which I *love* to do. I remember that show with Jacque Pepin - my culinary hero.
Permalink | Reply
The manure that mushrooms are grown in is pasteurized. There is no more food safety concern with mushrooms than with any other vegetable. I wash them just like I do everything else, though.
Permalink | Reply
I don't care if it's sterile as a surgeon's knife, any food product that sheds large clumps of dirt when rinsed will be washed in my house. I don't care what they do anywhere else because I can't see it, but I always seem to get boxes of button mushrooms with lots of dirt in them and it skeeves me out not to wash them!
I figure that, since I cut them right after I wash them and immediately add them to my dish, it can't be that bad. If they really absorbed significant quantities of water, they'd swell up in stews and such rather than releasing all their liquid and shrinking.
Permalink | Reply
I said I washed them, too. I was just making the point that mushrooms aren't grown in fresh dung, which is what the poster seemed to be implying.
Permalink | Reply
Sorry, should have put a smiley in there! I was being dramatic ;>
Permalink | Reply
mmm. pasteurized shit. anyway, I think the mushrooms do lose something if you soak them. i wipe off the dirt with a towel.
Permalink | Reply
yeah sounds delicious. pasturized or not........i'll pass on the manure and keep washing my schrooms.
Permalink | Reply
whew, boy that makes jfood feel better.
pasteurdized dung? OMG how can that adjective make dung any better to eat.
jfood will ALWAYS wash mushrooms. if they gain a little water at the expense of loosing pateurized dung, jfood will take that trade all day long.
Permalink | Reply
it's called compost.
Permalink | Reply
ok, let's getthe semantics under control. compost is the breaking down of stalk, skins and other former vegetation. Dung is the same BUT has the added process of passing through a living animal.
if mushroom are grown in organic compost that one thing, but dung is another word (in NJ at least) for animal sh&t.
Permalink | Reply
heat kills bacteria in COMPOST
Permalink | Reply
Cultured mushrooms are grown in sterile "manure," and it's perfectly safe (but may not taste great) to use them with little to no washing.
The problem with washing mushrooms is not whether the mushrooms will become water logged but whether the water absorbed by the gills will dillute a sauce or greatly extend the cooking time if you're making something like a duxelle. If you're using button mushrooms and the "apron" is still tightly closed over the gills, there's no problem with washing as the gills aren't about to absorb water under these circumstances.
I saw the program where AB did the thing with whether washing increased the musroom weight and kept wondering why he was bothering. As I recall, he didn't use any mushrooms with really large gills such as portobellos, or morell with all their nooks and crannies. But hey, let's not blame AB. Let's blame the writers. They're all on strike anyway, and they won't care. They have other problems.
Permalink | Reply
I thought that one doesn't wash mushrooms under water because it will make them tough. I've always used a brush or several paper towels to get rid of the gunk.
Permalink | Reply
there may be some truth to the weight thing but they do absorb moisture. Maybe they let out enough air(mushrooms are pretty airy) to make up the difference. Try making stuffed mushrooms with washed mushrooms. They leak enough liquid to steam the whole thing. non washed mushrooms do not do this
Permalink | Reply
try drying the mushrooms after rinsing...
i rinse my mushrooms right when i get home form the grocery store, damp them dry, and then store them in a paper bag. i like my mushrooms ready-to-go.
Permalink | Reply
An easy enough problem to fix. Simply keep the heat on high until the mushrooms have both leaked all the water they're going to leak, and the leaked-water has evaporated. The mushrooms then saute just fine.
Permalink | Reply
If you are used to only putting a pinch of salt in your pasta water, than removing it all together will not change it much, but if you put lots of salt in (as I have heard "as salty as the sea") then the pasta has a remarkably different and imo better flavor.
I feel that the amount of water has to do with the type of pasta and on altitude. At higher altitude it is much harder to cook pasta without it becoming gluey. I like lots of rapidly boiling water there, but here at sea level I cook spaghetti in a skillet with just an inch or two of water.
Permalink | Reply
I add so much salt to my pasta water that when some water splashes out onto the stove it dries white!! I definitely taste a difference when it is salted. Also, I notice that the pasta is definitely "free-er" (is this even a word??) when it is cooked in a larger pot of water and has room to move. And it comes out perfectly.
Permalink | Reply
I heard somewhere where it should taste like the ocean.
DT
Permalink | Reply
Me too, and that is what I do and I use Kosher salt when I do it!! ;-)
Permalink | Reply
Me too.
DT
Permalink | Reply
Good point about the pinch of salt. That may go a long way toward explaining why some people don't miss it when they don't use it!
Permalink | Reply
Homemade Mayo will not set only curdle if made in a thunderstorm. Some asked me why that was so. I never heard of it. That strikes me a food myth.
Permalink | Reply
However, it is true that pralines will not "set" properly on a cloudy, rainy day...........
Permalink | Reply
Anything with melted sugar will have trouble setting with high levels of humidity.
The same way that when i made my bread in New Jersey i needed more flour, but here in Los Angeles, i don't need as much for it all to come together.
Permalink | Reply
I believe everyone's comments on the salted, boiling pasta water are really an argument over semantics.....the question is whether the myth is A.)you "cannot" cook pasta without large amounts of salted, boiling, oiled water or is the myth that B.) you "should not" do it?! If the myth is A., then the original poster is correct you absolutely CAN cook pasta in smaller amounts of plain simmering water and salt it later to get the same general effect....it just requires more work (lots of stirring, checking temperature to watch for boil over, making more complex flavored sauces to carry the unflavored pasta, etc.). However, I would agree with the dissenters that you SHOULD NOT do it, because 1.) the more room the pasta has to float around, the less sticking together opportunities 2.) the rapid boil "self stirs" the pasta, again leading to less sticking and in the case of fresh pasta, causes it to cook faster on the outside giving it less of a chance to cook together into pasta globs 3.) the salt is absorbed by the pasta, thus giving it an inherent flavor of it's own vs post-salting, which will be washed off by whatever sauce you pour on 4.) oiled water cannot develop as much foam and thus allows for less watching / stirring.
Can vs. Should is the root of many classic myths...especially when talking to children. "You said I "can't" ride my bicycle down the middle of a 2-way street, but look mommy, I kept my front wheel in the middle of the yellow lines and everything! Ha! Told Ya So!"
My favorite food myth is that you can "steam" veggies in the microwave. Yes they will be partially cooked by the steam in your microwave safe container, but they are also being cooked directly by the microwaves themselves, boiling and exploding the water trapped in the plant cells, thus resulting in mushier cooked veggies than traditional steaming.
Permalink | Reply
Come on. The myth isn't whether or not you "can" cook pasta without lots of salted boiling water. Of course you can cook pasta in just enough water to cover it. heck, you can cook pasta in small amounts of boiling paint too.
Permalink | Reply
So far very few "myths" that require debunking. Seems like there are more myths held that are the opposite of the truths that people believe to be myths.
Permalink | Reply
How about the myth that MSG is bad for your health, causes headaches and other ailments, is not natural in food, and is found only in Chinese restaurant food (Chinese Restaurant Syndrome or CRS) and not in some of our favorite restaurant foods, processed foods, and snack foods in the "west."
Permalink | Reply
MSG gives me terrible headaches and heart palpitations.
Permalink | Reply
I get horrible headaches from it too and tested it to make sure that is what it was and it most definitely was!
Permalink | Reply
MSG= monosodium glutamate.
mono=1
sodium, as in sodium chloride is 1/2 of the ions found in table salt
glutamate=a natural amino acid found in many of your body's own proteins.
people get sick from MSG because they're ingesting too much salt. just as they would from eating too much table salt.
Permalink | Reply
You cannot analyze the effect of a chemical compound by breaking it into its component parts. I don't know if this is the case with MSG, but there are plenty of chemical compounds that have qualities that are very different from their component parts. Remember those high school physics and chemistry projects, where you would combine two clear liquids and they compound would change color, bubble, or heat up?
Permalink | Reply
The process of digestion results in the degradation of proteins into their amino acid components--basically the digestion of any protein will result in some free glutamate in your body.
I haven't seen any studies addressing perceived allergies to MSG, but if someone was severely allergic to glutamate, they would have symptoms from more than MSG.
Permalink | Reply
You cannot be allergic to MSG, nor is there any test for such an allergy.
Another myth.
MSG is the sodium salt of glutamates, and glutamates are naturally occuring in the human body and found in thousands of everyday foods.
Tyramines in foods cause migraines in people who suffer from them, but they can cause a doozy of headache in anybody who eats them, especially a lot of them. What's more, they're in a ridiculous number of Asian foods: soy sauce, tofu/bean curd, miso, teriyaki, fish or shrimp paste, broth, anything aged, dried, fermented, salted, smoked or pickled. That includes beer.
Any folks who think they get an MSG headache after eating Asian food are likely reacting to a large amounts of tyramines. (Or the loads of sodium in the MSG.) But not the MSG per se. Give that up.
Permalink | Reply
Yeah, but I am a salt-a-holic and do not get headaches when I eat it like the ones I get when I eat MSG.
What about allergies to sulpha products? I am fairly certain I am allergic to that.
Permalink | Reply
Do you mean sulfites? You can't be allergic to them either. That's a huge misconception, usually mentioned in connection to reactions after drinking wine. Sulfites don't have anything to do with wine reactions. If a person can eat dried fruit without a reaction, then they're not sensitive to sulfites.
The only persons suffering from sulfites are those with existing asthma
(about 5% of the population) and those with a deficiency in the enzyme to process sulfites, something called sulfite oxidase deficiency (1% of the populationi). Unless you suffer from either of those illnesses, you aren't sensitive to sulfites.
IIRC, a glass of wine contains about 30-40 mg of sulfites but the human body itself produces about 1000 mg/day of sulfites.
And by the way, you can't be allergic to sulfites. An allergy is a reaction to a protein. You can have an allergy to milk (a reaction to the protein casein) but that's far different than lactose intolerance (a deficiency of the enzyme lactase that's needed to digest lactose). One's an allergy, the other's an enzyme deficiency.
WildSwede, sounds like things other than MSG and sulfites are your causing your distress. Best to check it out with someone who knows rather than guess.
Permalink | Reply
Ditto, and I am twitchy almost all night long and cannot sleep. It's horrible. I now look for all those pseudonyms in the ingredients list, such as:
hydrolysed protein etc
Additives that frequently contain MSG*:
- Malt extract
- Malt Flavoring
- Bouillon
- Broth
- Stock
- Flavoring
- Natural Flavoring
- Natural Beef or Chicken Flavoring
- Seasoning - Spices
[* Often have between 30% and 60% MSG when it is added.]
Additives that may contain MSG or excitotoxins
- Carrageenan
- Enzymes
- Soy Protein Concentrate
- Soy Protein Isolate
- Whey Protein Concentrate
Permalink | Reply
Thank you. You're post explains why MSG does bother me. It has nothing to do with the sodium levels or any of the other mentioned things in it but with me it's the addition of Soy. Which I have an allergy to.
Permalink | Reply
MSG and aspartame are often described as excitotoxins. If they get through the blood brain barrier, they excite neurons to the point of killing some of them. Do they have something to do with dementia. I don't know, but I am not fooling with while others argue about their long-term effects?
Permalink | Reply
Do you have any sources for the excitotoxins claim?
Permalink | Reply
You need to also add "autolyzed yeast extract" and "yeast extract" to your list, both of which, I believe, generally contain at least as much MSG as hydrolyzed proteins.
Also, modified starches are generally not a good idea if you're sensitive, and they're everywhere.
Permalink | Reply
MSG *is* hydrolyzed protein.
Permalink | Reply
MSG is the sodium salt of glutamate, which is an amino acid, and thus simpler than a protein, I believe.
Hydrolyzing proteins creates MSG, but to my understanding, it also creates many other byproducts, too; at least, I believe that hydrolyzed proteins are something like between 20-40% MSG. Hence, there is a technical difference between MSG and hydrolyzed proteins.
Permalink | Reply
If the proteins are completely hydrolyzed, the other products are other amino acids. The % glutamate depends on the specific proteins being hydrolyzed.
Now I'm tempted to do a taste-test of amino acids...
Permalink | Reply
I have to laugh because when I was an undergrad I took a class from Robert Sapolsky - a very intelligent neuroscientist who spend one entire lecture on nutrasweet, its molecular relationship to MSG, and why we should be more afraid of it than MSG. It was very amusing to see him so passionate about this issue. I still eat nutrasweet from time to time : ). MSG doesn't cross the blood brain barrier in most adults, but it does in children and there are plenty of reports of people getting headaches from it or being otherwise intolerant.
Permalink | Reply
"traditional" asian cooking uses far less MSG than many processed foods that people commonly eat. Some people are MSG intolerant, just as some people can't deal with lactose, or gluten, or whatever. No doubt the higher the "dose" the more people that will be affected.
I lived in Seoul for 3 years, and never had an MSG headache. If i go to one of the cheap Korean BBQ chains here in Honolulu I can smell the MSG before I even bite in, and I do get a buzz and often a headache from it.
Permalink | Reply
It's not the same as lactose intolerance (which is an enzymatic deficiency, resulting in difficulty digesting lactose, which instead gets broken down by bacteria in the large intestine and can be associated with flatulence and diarrhea) or gluten sensitivity (usually meaning celiac disease, which is an autoimmune phenomena that increases risk for certain kinds of cancer if gluten-containing foods aren't avoided).
Permalink | Reply
My mother's family tends to have MSG sensitivity. Several of my aunts do get headahcess after ingesting MSG. I've found as I get older that if I ingest it I am unable to sleep for at least 24 hours.
Permalink | Reply
And *sniff* Johnsonville Brats. It's why I don't buy 'em anymore.
DT
Permalink | Reply
I have Crohn's Disease, and if I eat significant quantities of MSG, I will spend 48 hours in pain with a fever of 103-104F.
Permalink | Reply
It may be a myth, but my eyes get itchy and have occasionally swollen almost shut after eating Chinese food not explicitly labeled 'no MSG', and have never done that any other times. I'm open to any suggestions of other causes.
Permalink | Reply
I would highly recommend keeping a food diary of these issues. MSG is naturally occuring and is found in large quantities in certain cheeses (parmesan especially) and mushrooms as well as a laundry list of other places. If your sensitivity is centered around MSG solely you made need to make huge dietary changes. A nutritionist can help immensely.
Permalink | Reply
Also, keep in mind that even though a restaurant may advertise "No MSG", the pre-made sauces they use may already have it in them.
Permalink | Reply
MSG gives my sister migraines, and she entertains us at family dinners by describing what she's found it in recently.
Permalink | Reply
msg has the same effect on jfood as jamesm. good thing it also makes him pass out like a light so it does noteffect him all that much.
Permalink | Reply
Rigorous, double-blind studies suggest glutamate sensitivity is highly exaggerated and so-called "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" is in most cases caused by a placebo effect or by other sensitivities.
If you think you have it, and try to avoid glutamate, it is not enough to avoid MSG because glutamic acid is one of the major flavor components of anything that tastes umami: kelp, bonito, aged cheeses, mushrooms, etc. and indeed is a really common, basic amino acid you find in a wide, wide variety of proteins. I would highly suggest getting tested by a good allergy specialist to get tested because really avoiding glutamates is a serious undertaking.
Permalink | Reply
LC,
Do you have any references to those studies? Enquiring minds want to know...
Permalink | Reply
The most I can give you right now is Jeffrey Stenigarten's "Why Doesn't Everyone in China Have a Headahce?" pp 91-99 of "It Must've Been Something I Ate" which I was paraphrasing from memory...I remember looking at a few articles a couple years ago for a project I ended up not doing, but sadly I no longer have the information on them
If you wanted to learn more, you could try a search on web of science or google scholar: Some of the authors Steingarten cites:
Tarasoff and Kelly
William H. Yang
Karl Folkers at UTexas
also, having read this again, it appears that you may be able to get some reaction to glutamate if you are not actually allergic, but most of the time only if you consume a <large> amount of it, in solution, on an empty stomach.
Permalink | Reply
Jeffrey Steingarten points out that consumption of very salty foods on an empty stomach (especially when not well hydrated) may cause symptoms similar to those described by people who think that they are sensitive to MSG.
Permalink | Reply
There ae volumes of informaton on the web about the problems with MSG. I don't like it. I don't use it. But despite it causing me headaches and such, that is not the reason I don't use it and don't buy products (if at all humanly possible) that contain MSG. The reason MSG is used is to enhance (or revive) flavor in sub-premium food. Why on earth would I want to eat crappy quality food?. *NO* MSG!
Permalink | Reply
(This has nothing to do with the above's personal tastes, just a little PSA)
The internet is a risky and often TERRIBLE source for scientific/medical information - if you are looking to educate yourself, look for something peer-reviewed or written by a remotely credible expert. Much if not most of what you might find from a basic google search is likely to be mangled, poorly researched, or easy to misinterpret. Especially for things like food chemistry, well-researched books or journal articles are your best bet.
Permalink | Reply
Here's one I've only learned recently - you CAN put your bananas in the refrigerator. Can't believe I'm posting about this book for the second time, but Bananas: An American History claimed that the whole "Bananas come from south of the equator/so never put bananas in the re-frig-er-a-tor" was cooked up by ad folks to sell more bananas. Actually, bananas are shipped in refrigerated containers and, like so many other things, will keep better if refrigerated. The peels will turn darker, but the fruit inside will be fine. And I tested this, and lo! it is true. Lying marketing bastards.
But don't put tomatoes in the re-frig-er-a-tor - that's real.
Permalink | Reply
why are you doing the "re-frig-er-a-tor" thing?
Permalink | Reply
Oh, sorry - it's the Chiquita Banana song...
Permalink | Reply
Definitely true- although I learned by experience. I tend to be cheap with the AC and in the summer bananas get ripe way too fast for my liking. Even if the peel is pretty dark in the fridge, it will still be firmer in the center. Somehow I know this but never do it and end up with overripe bananas. :(
Permalink | Reply
Yes, my boyfriend has successfully kept bananas in the fridge for much longer than I thought they would be edible (dark brown peel with darker spots), but they come out OK.
I think he's stretching refrigerator out to show the rhyme rhythm from the ad.
Permalink | Reply
That's a good trick to know. Recently, I was away for 5 days and before leaving I put a perfectly ripe banana into the fridge. When I got home, the peel was totally black, but the banana had ripened no further. I ate it sliced over my cereal.
Permalink | Reply
In order to cook rice properly you have to measure everything out exactly and do this and do that and cover and steam, etc.
Just make a big pot of boiling water with some oil or butter in it (prevents so much boiling over) and toss in a scoop of rice. Boil it like pasta and then drain. Turns out fluffy and wonderful every time and is very convenient for any time when you can't monitor the rice.
Permalink | Reply
the Galloping Gourmet in 1975 had on his show the theory that throw lots of water and rice together, put on the timer and when the timer goes off pour the whole thing in a strainer.
works every time for the last 30+ years
Permalink | Reply
how long do you put the timer on for? also, do you add the rice when the water is cold or add it once it boils? i always have problems with my damn rice sticking to the pan, so if this works, I will definitely try.
Permalink | Reply