Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
Pro chefs debate cooking tips and tricks (bonappetit.com)
77 points by RafelMri on March 23, 2022 | hide | past | favorite | 103 comments


Summary:

1. Fruits ripen faster if placed in a paper bag with apples or bananas.

> Agree x 6

2. Marinating for 30 minutes achieves the same goal as marinating for 24 hours.

> Disagree x 6. Tested on pork tenderloin.

3. Adding oil to pasta water prevents pasta from sticking.

> Disagree x 6

4. Adding citrus to guacamole will stop it from oxidizing.

> Agree x 6

5. You should wash your mushrooms before cooking.

> Disagree x 6

6. Silpat baking mats are better for even baking versus parchment versus foil.

> Agree x 5, Sideways x 1. Tested on chocolate chip cookies.

7. Beans need to be soaked overnight before cooking.

> Disagree x 5, Agree x 1

8. The best way to get crispy bacon is to start with a cold pan.

> Agree x 4, Disagree x 2. Tested on bacon.

9. The reverse-sear method is the best way to cook a perfect medium rare steak.

> Disagree x 6

10. You should rinse your meat before cooking.

> Disagree x 6

11. Hard boiled eggs should be started in cold water.

> Disagree x 5, Agree x 1


Regarding 11, Seriouseats/Kenji did the definitive scientific exploration of the hard boiled egg:

https://www.seriouseats.com/the-secrets-to-peeling-hard-boil...

I've inadvertently run this experiment many times. For years I followed Alton's original Good Eats instruction and started with cold water. Shells were always hard to peel. After Kenji's article I switched to adding eggs to boiling water, and it makes a huge difference in peelability. Also, cook time is more precise because the water temperature is constant; different ranges/burners/pots/waterlevels boil at different rates.

The only problem with starting in boiling water is that if your eggs come directly from the fridge (ie store bought eggs) some will often crack from the heat shock. This can be mitigated by putting eggs in lukewarm water for a few minutes first. Or just get chickens and keep your eggs at room temperature :-)


I once needed to make 40 soft-boiled deviled eggs for a cooking contest. I got dozens of the cheapest eggs and tried all the techniques, both cooking and peeling. I found one cooking and peeling method that works for every single form of boiled egg.

The Ajitsuke Tamago method is the best cooking method. Stir egg(s) in a pot of boiling water for an exact amount of time and then dunk the egg in ice water. It's 100% accurate (no overcooked/uneven eggs) and fast. Change the time to switch between soft, medium, and hard boiled. Do not use too many eggs at once to prevent rapid temperature draw.

For peeling, the best method by far is the spoon method. You point the tip of a spoon into the eggshell at a ~15degree angle and move the spoon up between the shell and egg. Continue moving the tip up along the interior egg shell until the entire shell has been peeled away. You use a continuous motion so it's not finicky or time-consuming. None of the egg is damaged. Works on soft, medium, and hard-boiled eggs, and on old and fresh eggs alike. No water needed.


FWIW, Alton Brown has updated his recommendation to steaming: https://altonbrown.com/recipes/hard-not-boiled-eggs/

For me, they don’t crack right out of the fridge!


steaming eggs was a life changer. I discovered it with one of those unitasker (hangs head in shame) egg mcmuffin style devices. it cooked eggs via steaming (both scrambled and hard boiled) where you added a predetermined amount of water to a pan and it would shut off when boiled off). Created the best hard boiled eggs I've ever had.

I sort of wish rice cookers / pressure cookers (ala instant pot) came with this ability. as they can already tell when all the water has boiled off. just some experimentation with how much water to put in based on # of eggs and a holder. then no unitasker and nice and automated.


I have always wanted a Ronco egg scrambler...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdonmCgg3lE


One technique I find that works every time to make peeling easy is to instantly run the eggs under the tap once the timer has finished. My only explanation is it causes a temperature shock which helps the membrane peel away from the inner egg.


Don't you have a device for puncturing the eggs in your country so they don't crack?

Called Eierpiekser in German: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B000A8BKX8/


Neither I nor my parents ever used this (Germans), yet cracking is extremely rare. It happened to me maybe 5 times in 10 years.


We have them in the UK! But now I use the point of a sharp knife to make a hole in my eggs before boiling.


I have lived in 4 countries and I've never heard of this method or this type of gadget before!


He's also at least addressed #5: https://www.seriouseats.com/how-to-clean-and-chop-mushrooms

I don't think he was the first of the Kenji/Alton Brown/Cooks Illustrated types to say this though. I'm pretty sure I switched to washing before he posted this.


Jacques Pepin washes his mushrooms right before cooking them. If Jacques does it, either it's the right/efficient way, or there is no right way.


Boil the eggs in salted water (no matter if start is hot or cold, for hard boiled cook for 15 minutes from cold start, 10 if start from boil point).

After they are cooked place them in cold water until they cool off a bit.

You'll have no trouble peeling either way.


What does the salt do? Seems like it would only change the boiling point of the water.


> For you Euro types who store your eggs at room temperature, everything discussed here still applies.

Hah, that was my question after I started reading, good thing I did ctrl+f fridge ;)


Kenji is the best. Food Lab is always on my kitchen counter. Highly recommend it for anyone trying to improve at cooking.


On 5, Alton Brown and Harold McGee showed that mushrooms did not absorb water when washing. https://www.mashed.com/311042/this-is-who-alton-brown-thinks...


I don't think it's about absorbing, but more about how you pat dry your meat before searing. But then who wants to sit and pat dry two dozen tiny mushrooms one by one after wetting them.


Sautéing mushrooms drains the liquid from them, so I do wonder how much difference a damp mushroom exterior is going to make, beyond extending the cooking time slightly.


Yeah, mushrooms don't sear like meat. They only brown after enough water has been cooked out. The only real reason to dry off your mushrooms before cooking them is if you're frying them in a lot of fat, to prevent spatter.


Mushrooms are full of water naturally; the first thing that happens when you put them in a saute pan is that it fills up with liquid. Having your steak bone dry helps get a fast sear on it, but I don't know that that holds for mushrooms.


I never pay dry my mushrooms. I always wash them. They come covered in stuff. The water left on the outside seems pretty negligible compared to what gets cooked out of the mushrooms.


I just put them in a colander and set them in front of a 6" fan, giggle about after a few minutes, they dry fine.

The 6" desk fan is an essential kitchen appliance.


For me the issue is not whether they will absorb the water or not, but aren’t they dirty. We wash everything before cooking, except meat.


in some kitchens I've seen, they use a brush to brush away the dirt/soil from the mushrooms.

Me? I wash them!


I’d trust Harold McGee on just about anything.


Regarding #2, it is a shame they only had half hour and 24 hour options. Most marinade taste tests I've seen top out at around 3 hours, IIRC.


The logic they're all using on #2 is verkakte; the aromatics they're talking about penetrating the meat don't penetrate at all (the molecules are too large). Salt penetrates, which is why brining works, but flavors generally don't.


Acidic components can also make a difference with time, especially with certain enzymes like in pineapple and I think maybe soy sauce.

Personal taste test, chicken breast marinated in Italian salad dressing (or vinegar, oil, aromatics and a dash of mustard) definitely is best with at least an hour.


> 8. The best way to get crispy bacon is to start with a cold pan.

Start in a cold pan, but put a little bit of water in it (just enough to cover the bacon). Per America's Test Kitchen:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2guC4Badq2s

First, the water will act as lubricant to prevent burning. Second, the water will take the initial heat instead of the bacon. But as the water gets hotter the heat will also transfer to the bacon's fat, which will start to render (go from solid to liquid). By the time the water boils away the fat will now be present in the pan as lubricant.

For larger batches bake it in the oven:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J84JQU71WBc


For #9 I wish they offered a clear better alternative, I wonder if they would agree on any one technique, probably not. For me I haven’t found a better, easier way than reverse sear, I know sous vide is good but I refuse to go there for now.


Re: sous vide, why not? We've been using this for quite a while, it was one of those "experiments" during the shutdowns.

Yeah, it takes some equipment, and like everything else there's a bit of a learning curve. For a lot of foods we like it works exceedingly well.

One thing though is that an item (poultry, fish, steak, etc.) cooked sous vide is essentially poached, probably not how you'd like to serve it. One way to deal with this is searing cooked meats rapidly in a cast-iron skillet. An alternative (that I prefer) is using my trustworthy Bernzomatic propane torch for the job. A quick "painting" with the flame gives a nice appearance and taste. Fun to do especially when we have dinner guests, a little dramatic flair never hurts.

And of course when not "incinerating" the evening meal, the torch is great for welding aluminum parts, a true multi-use tool.


I know it’s good, my objection is I am trying to avoid yet another kitchen specialty device that I use less and less as time goes on. I have a pressure cooker and a waffle iron that need some love. :)


Pressure cookers are great for stocks, cooking beans, rice. Waffle iron, well, not so much. Our kitchen is small, no room for mere gadgets. Sous vide items compact pretty well so not a storage hog. Time not space is the issue. Like >=1 hour for slabs of fish, not practical for many people.


I've read that for reverse sear the steak needs to be an inch and a half thick or more. That's rare to find here - have you made it work with thinner steaks?


Try cheating lower temp and slower in the oven, and make sure you’re well setup for very quick sear so you don’t cook through too much. Maybe you could take another kenji trick from his wings and leave your steaks uncovered in the fridge to remove surface moisture before the sear.


Myself, I use a stainless steel frying pan on medium high, steaks stay on each side for about 4-5 minutes and that’s it. Perfect medium rare all the time with a great sear on the outside. That’s for 1” steaks by the way.


Wonder if most of the washing advice applies to buying from wet markets, there's some pretty sus sanitary environments out there.


> 2. Marinating for 30 minutes achieves the same goal as marinating for 24 hours.

I wonder if they confused the marinating with salt/vinegar softening? Marinating for taste should make no or barely any difference, salt/vinegar will need more time to work.


Thank you for this great summary!


It's wild how unscientific this video was, and how all of them were basically going off of their gut feelings for answers.


That's Bonappetit for you. All of their videos of this nature have wildly unqualified folks. One of them featured Alex Delaney who I think was the editor in chief's assistant before he became drinks editor. I'm sure the guy cooks, but they lost my respect when they put him in a video about "Pro chefs". (I didn't watch this one, sorry, but I hope he's not in it)


To me the point was how even pro chefs don't agree or know the answer. People like Kenji or Ragusea showed me how much of existing tricks aren't based in any real food science.


Ragusea’s video about how searing in extra virgin olive oil is perfectly fine (and in fact healthier than more neutral oils due to the monounsatured fats) was eye-opening. My dad always liked to sear in olive oil and said he didn’t believe the claims that it would impart a burnt taste to the food (but it indeed gives the crust a non-neutral flavor if that’s what you’re going for).

Personally, I never thought soaking dried beans overnight made sense. I eventually found a blog post where a chef did a blind taste test of soaking overnight vs directly boiling dried beans and found that they taste better without the soaking (but take longer to cook). Ever since then I have made what I think results in the tastiest hummus by skipping the soaking, skipping the baking soda (which imparts a weird aftertaste), and just straight boiling dried Umbrian chickpeas, followed by passing the final product through a #60 lab-grade sieve. Saves time, is much smoother, and tastes better than any recipe I’ve found online.

The only item that I am surprised about on the list is the chefs’ collective opinion on reverse searing. Personally I’ve found it works better than almost anything else if you’re not looking for a technique that imparts additional flavor (e.g., grilling over binchotan is my ultimate favorite approach for many types of meat but that is due to the unique smoky flavor rather than grilling per se). Reverse searing tough cuts for 6-7 hours at a very low PID-controlled temperature even seems to work much better than braising for flavor. I would like to see some blind taste tests for claims about methods that work better than the reverse sear.


If you salt your water before soaking, then your beans will be seasoned internally. In Indian cooking we additionally throw whole spices in (cardamom, star anise, pepper, etc).


Soaking overnight is one of those hands-off, no-brainer preps that no one probably questioned if they could shorten the time until crock pots became commonplace.

I'm also shocked at the reverse-sear detractors. Personally I've been doing it for years because "searing in the juices" never made sense, and cooking on plenty of mediocre apartment stoves, it's been a foolproof way to assure that the outside of the steak is nice and dry without overcooking the inside. I've tried other methods that didn't require specialized equipment, and the reverse-sear has been the most reliable.


I'm a 4h salted water soaker now - i think i saw the 4h (versus 8h/overnight) on a bean forum that may have been run as net news originally. I find 4h to be a reasonably small amount of time to work with, and I use a pressure cooker to do the cooking; I can have the idea to have beans for dinner as late as ~noon, and that's workable.


Rancho Gordo splits the difference on soaking with their beans, saying that soaking for a few hours will help speed up and even out cooking. But also that it's unnecessary. They do also suggest cooking in the soaking liquid, which I suspect is the cause of the taste difference in taste tests like you cite.


For steak, my first thought was that the objectively best way to cook steak is sous-vide + quick sear. I realize not everyone has sous-vide, but that produces the best results where the entire steak is cooked to the exact perfect doneness, and the top layer has the seared flavor.


I'd rather have a better sear than an exactly perfect temp gradient though, and sous vide offers the opposite tradeoff so I don't prefer it. Also I think this throws a wrench into the idea that you can define what an "objectively best" thing is here.

EDIT: Also please ffs no one give me cooking advice, I know how to get a good sear.


I wasn't giving you advice, and I still maintain that it is the superior method.

You can sear however and as much as you want to. The point is that your searing isn't limited and compromised for the inside of the steak. You're doing the inside and the outside in two separate steps, and you can get the perfect cooking you want on both, instead of trying to balance things.

That's also how the reverse sear method works, but sous-vide is more reliable and low effort. You can actually leave it in the water bath for longer without worrying about over cooking. There's a reason most restaurants use the sous-vide method, they leave it in there and quickly sear to perfection when the order comes in.

There is no science to backup the fact that a "temperature gradient" is better. Medium-rare steak is objectively better than well done steak, and a "gradient" is basically part of your steak being "well-done" for the sake of the inside not being "rare".


Helen Rennie is another good one


There's a reason they call it culinary arts and not culinary science. Different cultures and chefs have had their own approaches to dishes, methods of preparation and secret recipes for thousands of years. Why are you expecting a group of them to get together and unanimously agree on how to cook?


the gut feelings of working professional recipe creators seems pretty valid to me. id take that over a scientific approach that lacked professional experience to provide context.


As I've gotten more into cooking as I've gotten older it's frustrating how often people don't really understand why they do things the way they do when they cook something, yet will doggedly insist that it must be done that certain way. As I've started to watch more and pay attention to youtubers who explain why they do things in a logical and rational way, even if you're not interested in that particular recipe, the correctly explained and justified techniques will be beneficial in many other things you cook.


The problem is the pros do this all the time as well. There are plenty of top chefs that were taught something when they were young and they continue to do it and preach it despite evidence that it’s not true.


There are also cases where the thing the chefs were doing was correct, even if they didn't know why or had the wrong reason. This is both the pro and the con of tradition-based crafts.

Anyway where were they even to get this information? Kenji has been influential the last few years, and he builds very heavily off of McGee, which came out in the mid 80s. It's been only like two generations of chefs here since evidence like this was even partially available.

Before that, and still mostly, the intersection of science and cooking is driven by the needs of the industrial food system. Whether you can apply that to restaurant cooking probably depends a lot on your personal background and skill set, but most cooks I've worked with would be lost trying to read an academic food science paper and apply it to their work. I definitely would be.


That's a big part of the problem. Another issue is they're working in professional kitchens, and things aren't the same as they are for a home cook. Yes there are things a home cook can learn from pro kitchens, but a lot of other things don't translate.

One thing I love about folks like Kenji, Brown, Gritzer, McGee, Cooks Illustrated, et al is they approach their experiments from the perspective of a reasonable home kitchen.


Pro chefs aren't the ones to ask here. It's a craft you learn through repetition and doesn't necessarily require much scientific knowledge.

It's like the idea that you sear a piece of meat to 'seal in juices'. It's absolute nonsense, but you can sear a piece of meat and have it still be juicy. So it's one of those things that is widely believed to correlate when it doesn't. It's something done for flavour and texture and doesn't actually affect juiciness.


The perceived "juiciness" is actually the additional saliva produced as a result of the additional flavors.


Maybe but there's definitely a difference in the amount of water content left when cooked say, MR vs MW (and final weight would reinforce that as well). And I find fattier cuts are perceived to be more 'juicy' as well.


Are any of these people "pro chefs"? It looks like they all either work for Bon Appetit, or do catering and private chef work. A "chef" runs a kitchen; it's like being the VP/Engineering of a cooking team.


Eh it doesn't carry that meaning outside of the industry. You can fight it if you want but in english people seem to commonly understand "chef" to mean "professional, or maybe just fancy, cook."


The transcript of that was totally unreadable, and did NOT motivate me to watch the video.


Reading part of the transcript made me realize how a huge percentage of your average entertainment video is just... nonsensical filling material. I mean.... like... you know... totally... like....... OK so... word.


A few other commenters have mentioned Kenji or Alton, but somehow Modernist Cuisine hasn’t yet been mentioned. 2500 pages packed with science, engineering, and stunning photography all in the name of making food as good as it can be, with an emphasis on rigorous empiricism and first principles analysis.

After skimming it the first time, you begin to take a lot of other food media with a grain of salt.


It's an incredible artifact but not very useful as a cooking resource, even the "at home" variants. It is more the kind of thing you have on hand to occasionally reference as you're developing a recipe.

I'm trying to be charitable here but that series is laser-targeted at appealing to people who think science and engineering are virtues, rather than people who actually do cooking. Not that there isn't useful info in it, but it's more of a vanity project than something driven by a real need.


I can feel Kenji's subconscious rage bubbling just looking at the title


His rage seems to bubble for the silliest things, though. He won't even call kaffir lime leaves by their name because someone somewhere might take offense — which is ridiculous given the fact that the most likely etymology of the term isn't what some ignorant individuals assume.

It's like never describing anyone as "niggardly" because stupid people exist.

Now, his recipes are generally great, and I appreciate his generosity in giving away some recipes from the restaurant he co-founded.


It's kind of odd that your example of his rage bubbling is that he uses one word rather than another. I'd have expected at least something like going around the internet criticizing people for using the word he doesn't prefer for reasons he disagrees with.


> which is ridiculous given the fact that the most likely etymology of the term isn't what some ignorant individuals assume.

What do you think is the most likely etymology that doesn't do back to Arabic for infidel?


I hate to cite the Wiki, but here goes (and it notes the attachment to the Arabic insult is not well supported in the literature):

> The most likely etymology is through the Kaffirs, an ethnic group in Sri Lanka partly descended from Bantu slaves. The earliest known reference, under the alternative spelling "caffre" is in 1888 book The Cultivated Oranges, Lemons Etc. of India and Ceylon by Emanuel Bonavia, who notes, "The plantation coolies also smear it over their feet and legs, to keep off land leeches; and therefore in Ceylon [Sri Lanka] it has got also the name of Kudalu dchi, or Leech Lime. Europeans call it Caffre Lime." Similarly, H.F. MacMillan's 1910 book A Handbook of Tropical Gardening and Planting notes, "The 'Kaffir Lime' in Ceylon." [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaffir_lime


> Kaffirs, an ethnic group in Sri Lanka partly descended from Bantu slaves.

Which is again derived from the same Arabic root. Sure, it's not considered offensive in Sri Lanka but it's very offensive pretty much everywhere else.


I was reading the beginning of this thinking "oh god here we go again this is like that few years when everyone on reddit was slobbering to say the word niggardly and explain why it's good" and then you just did exactly that lmao.

If a word is bothering someone why don't you find out why, instead of explain to them why it shouldn't?


They didn't make any indication that it's good to use the word, but rather that self-censoring to mitigate the knee-jerk reaction of ignorant people is not good.

> If a word is bothering someone why don't you find out why, instead of explain to them why it shouldn't?

It's perfectly fine to explain why a word is not malicious because the person who initially misunderstood then acquires that knowledge and can then make the distinction. To go with the alternative promotes a pattern of behavior where, eventually, many words end up being forbidden from use all due to ignorance.

Just because two words sound kind of similar, or are even homophones[1], doesn't make them synonymous. This should be common knowledge.

1: Even the word "homophone" is a prime example, as it was used by someone on the Ellen show which led to the host getting upset because she mistook it to mean something completely different.


All I get is a black box that says "we're sorry something went wrong".


Entertaining video, but I feel like a lot of cooking is pseudo-science and hear say. For example, everybody tells you to salt during cooking, when it's much better to salt, add paper, and olive oil, after cooking. Yet, everybody will argue with me like they can really tell a difference.

It's interesting that this was not asked during the video though.


No no no no, it is absolutely necessary to salt the different components that go into a dish. Many things will absorb salt during the cooking process. Salt can also draw water out of an item which will change the way it cooks as well, for example with eggplant. You need to be constantly checking the salt level while cooking to ensure your final product is not just salty enough but salted throughout the dish and not just on the outer layer. This is especially true with proteins, all of which need to be salted in advance in order to get proper penetration.

Re your comment about olive oil, an extra virgin olive oil has flavor and it would be pointless to roast with it, but you absolutely need oil while cooking food as it's a thermal interface between your pan or your oven air and your food. Of course there are finishing oils that tend to be something with a lot of flavor like EVOO, sesame oil, or an e.g. rosemary infused olive oil, but most oil needs to be added during cooking.


I just wish I could cook two dishes, one with salt during cooking, and one with salt after, and do some blind tests. I bet most people would have no idea which is which.

The same thing happened with expensive coke and cheaper coke, or coke and pepsi, or branded yogurt vs cheap yogurt, or very expensive wines and OK wines. And blind tests tend to show that most people can't tell the difference. Yet everybody is convinced that they can :)


I've done the test, the difference is noticeable.


Not to mention blooming your spices.


What are you cooking that you add oil after it is done?

Also, most of the pro chefs that I have watched will add salt throughout cooking (especially if it is a dish they can taste as they go) to make sure the balance stays right.

Also, you may be interested in Cook's Illustrated "The Science of Good Cooking"; the book goes through a lot of the "why" behind basic techniques and recipes.


> What are you cooking that you add oil after it is done?

Really everything from salads to grilled meat. If you use good olive oil, cooking it will remove its taste, so it's really a waste. If you want to taste some good olive oil, you have to eat it raw.

> Also, most of the pro chefs that I have watched will add salt throughout cooking (especially if it is a dish they can taste as they go) to make sure the balance stays right

I know, but then I tried this at home many times and I could not taste a difference. Perhaps there is a slight difference but I wouldn't expect any home chef to notice.

Fresh pepper and olive oil always taste better than cooked pepper and cooked oil. Garlic is better when slightly cooked. Same for herbs like mint, coriander, etc. that I don't cook anymore.


There are plenty of reasons to do and not do all of the things you listed.

I toast my peppercorns before cracking them for Thai and Vietnamese dishes or whenever I need smoke without piquancy.

I don't saute with EVOO because it's got one of the lowest smoke points. I also don't necessarily want everything I dress to taste like olive oil, and I use a range of fats for complement.

Salt, like many ingredients, takes time to distribute, so adding it at the end won't enhance a dish unless the desired flavor is "salt". Soups, stews, and meat all benefit from pre-salting. Dissolving salt in water before adding it to doughs and batters is better than adding it dry is better than baking without salt and adding it at the end. Time is key.

Garlic depends on the dish. I frequently use raw grated garlic in South American and Korean, cook it low and slow until it's sticky golden and then add fresh right off the heat for "American" Italian, or crush a clove to saute in oil and then discard for traditional Italian. I mostly agree about the herbs, but I also cook with them add more for garnish.

I've got some eclectic culinary styles and preferences by most standards, so I usually fish a little during conversation so I can taylor for my guests' tastes without making it obvious. The point is really to have a good time.


While I agree on a whole lot of points and probably just about everything, "from salads to grilled meat" covers "something not cooked" and "something cooked but very resistant to anything penetrating more than like half a centimeter". That's not a very wide range of food, particularly where these ingredients are concerned.

How about a stewed tomato dish? Eggplant Parmesan? Curry? Stuff where salt and oil would have literally any chance of penetrating or affecting the chemistry for more than a few minutes or millimeters? It fairly clearly works better afterward for stuff that doesn't, but that's hardly all or even most food.


The purpose of adding oil during cooking is not to add flavor, it's to improve heat conduction. You can use cheaper oil for cooking and save the good stuff for raw applications.


Why would you use good/expensive olive oil to cook/fry with in the first place?

If you're not able to taste a difference when you're adding salt you might want to try a different size or type of salt. I have maybe 5 or 6 different granularities and types I use for difference times at home.


I think you should salt as little as is necessary, as late as possible, if for no other reason that you can't unsalt a dish. Salting and tasting early and often is important for improvisational cooking, of course. And obviously that includes stuff like salting meat before roasting, salting cooking water for starchy foods and vegetables, etc. But I've seen people add salt to their sautéed aromatics, and there's really no reason to do that.


> But I've seen people add salt to their sautéed aromatics, and there's really no reason to do that.

Salt draws out liquids in aromatics that affects how they brown. Try sauteing side by side onions where you add salt at the beginning and the end and the texture and color of the onions will be completely different.


There's no generic advice that applies to all ingredients and dishes from all cuisines. For example try adding oil to a stir fry after cooking and tell me how that turns out.


Salt during and before cooking. E.g., with chicken if you do a dry/wet brine then the chicken absorbs the salt and becomes internally seasoned, as opposed to being bland internally.

E.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da3AgIWFZdM


If the olive oil is fresh enough to enjoy with a piece of toast, then the tip about olive oil is accurate.

Cooking with olive oil (at anything above low heat) and topping cooked food with olive oil produce two noticeably different tastes.

You have to cook at a really low temperature to preserve that olive oil taste, which most people don't. So, you may be better off cooking with a higher temperature oil (avocado, and coconute oils) and topping with olive oil after you're done cooking.

About salt: it makes whatever you're cooking dehydrate. This is sometimes desired early on in the cooking process, but not always.



It depends how you like your food to taste. If you need ingredients to be as salty as possible, then sure, but when they hit your mouth with the salt that you added at the end it's not going to make much difference.


I can't speak for your taste, but I can taste the difference, particularly with meat. I don't usually salt veggie that much.


I suggest trying to add salt flakes on the already-grilled meat VS salting during cooking. To me it's much better.


I salt steaks for at least 4-5 hours before I grill them, then add a bit of salt when serving. I don't salt burgers before grilling.

Like I say, certain people prefer different taste, and that's what make cooking an art rather than a science. But I'm surprised that you can't taste the different.


I assume little optimizations like that are only noticeable to "trained" palates. A professional chef could tell whether each component was seasoned, or if you dumped salt in at the end. I definitely couldn't tell, though.


My opinion: taste discrimination in various realms (cheese, ham, beef, wine, etc.) is a perishable attribute, and one that requires conscious attention. Overall experience is important, but I can't pick out cattle breeds by the flavor of their ribeyes like I could when I was a kid. I was eating a lot of beef from local ranchers while I was raising beef cattle, I was looking for certain attributes in the genetic material I was buying, and so I could not only immediately pick out a Charlois from an Angus mix immediately, but I could also pick out differences in crossbreeds. Note that in my experience this isn't unusual, but I did have a knack for judging critters (somehow I won a judging award at Cal Poly SLO and it involved chickens among other animals: I don't know a damned thing about chickens).

Now I can't taste beef the same way as I used to, especially not with grain-finished crossbreeds. I think it's one of those things, like pistol shooting, that is perishable and needs heavy reinforcement. Also, age is physiologically a factor.

TL;DR: eat more!


If kitchen nightmares has taught me anything, it's that "Pro" is an incredibly low bar. Pass.


You don't think that these chefs and the ones featured on Kitchen Nightmares might be selected differently?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sI7E8J1sGvw

There’s good content out there for you to learn from. I agree that it can be hidden behind mainstream garbage shows.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: