Monday, May 24, 2010

Does this change everything?



There always seem to be various holy rules in cooking that you cannot break because tradition says so. And it's so much the way to do things that you cannot even question it. But this sort of conventional wisdom often doesn't hold up to modern, Good Eats-like analysis.

I remember when I was in high school, just starting to learn to cook, when I saw a Good Eats episode in which Alton Brown demonstrated that the quickest way to defrost frozen food was by placing it in a tub of cold water, under running cold water from the faucet. I had up to that point thought that my only options were the microwave's defrost cycle (horrible, horrible method in retrospect), or letting it sit in the fridge (although that would require so much time, that I would always have to resort to the microwave anyway when the frozen food in question was still far from thawed after an overnight stay in the fridge).

Learning to quickly and evenly defrost frozen food changed everything for me during those novice years.

So a few days ago, I was very interested to read Serious Eats' analysis of what is the traditional method to cook pasta. Everyone knows that you have to boil up a ton of water so that the water quickly returns to a boil and the pasta doesn't stick together! That's just how you're supposed to do it.

And of course, at a minimum, the water has to be boiling, right?

Right?

Well, maybe not! Follow me below the fold.
Check it out:
Here are the most common reasons I've heard for why you need to use a large volume of water:
  • Reason 1. A large volume of water has a higher thermal mass, and thus keeps its temperature better than a small volume. When you drop pasta into it, it thus re-achieves a boil much faster. If you were to let the pasta sit in lukewarm water as it comes back up to temperature, it would be overcooked and mushy.
  • Reason 2. A large volume of water at a rolling boil helps keep the pasta separated from each other. The pieces are constantly agitated by the water and thus cook more evenly with fewer clumps.
  • Reason 3. A small volume of water will become too starchy as the pasta cooks. This will make the pasta more sticky when you drain it.
  • Reason 4. That's the way grandma did it.
Those are some bold claims indeed. I decided to take a closer look at them, one by one.
The author goes on to debunk each of these claims. It turns out that you can cook pasta in just enough water to cover it and get the same quality of cooked pasta as the more "traditional" method. You must stir it often though, to keep the pasta submerged. Additionally, you end up with a more concentrated, starchier pasta water to thicken your sauce. Sounds like a win-win.

It gets better. The author then goes on to try cooking pasta without using boiling water!
I brought one last small pot of water to a boil and dumped in my pasta. After allowing it to come back up to a simmer, I stirred it once to ensure that the pasta wasn't sticking to itself or the pot, immediately threw a lid on the thing, and shut off the burner, knowing that in the ten to twelve minutes it took the pasta to cook, my pot would lose at most four to five degrees, keeping it well within the 180+ comfort zone.
I have to admit: even I was a little skeptical on this one. I mean, cook pasta without even boiling it? As my timer slowly counted down, I tried to list off noodle shapes in my head alphabetically just to pasta time away. If this really works, it'd be huge, I thought. I'd never cook pasta the same way again! All that wasted heat bringing a huge pot of water to a boil and maintaining it there! Think of how cool my kitchen would stay in the summer! This method could solve our energy crisis! Or at the very least, save me a couple bucks on my gas bill each month. I'd no longer have to be such a, ahem... penne pincher.
When the timer finally went off, I opened the lid and poked around a little. So far so good. The pasta sure looked cooked, and tasting it revealed al dente perfection. Success!
That's ballsy. Anyone dare to try it?

He concludes with a few caveats: This doesn't apply to fresh pasta, or long pasta, and reminds us that you don't need to salt or oil the water.

Tradition might get the best of me in the end, but I will definitely post if I become a convert to this method.

1 comment:

Kate said...

As I recall the NY Times did a thing a few years ago about how you don't really need all that water to cook pasta. Personally, I never use as much water as the pasta box usually calls for. Just fill up your pot like 60% and you're good to go. As long as you stir the pasta it makes no difference whatsoever in my experience.

Post a Comment