SCENE 1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
So here we have two pieces of beef: lovely New York Strip steaks, I might add. Steak "A" weighs in at 307 grams, while steak "B" weighs in just a little lighter at 296 grams. |
307 296 |
One of our steaks will go directly into a 400 degree oven. The other steak will
receive a fast sear in a rocket-hot cast iron skillet before moving to the oven.
In order to better absorb the heat that's coming to them, we will lube each
piece of meat with just a wee bit of oil. But because it would pull moisture out
of the meat, thus throwing off our experiment, no salt will be added.
AB: Now, allez-cuisine!
ASSISTANTS: [not knowing what AB just said, they look
at each other in confusion]
AB: Uh, let's get cooking!
So both of our steaks go into the oven. We have our probes in place.
AB: There you go, gentlemen.
And we'll set our thermometers to go off at 140 degrees, which is basically medium.
AB: Clear? [meaning is everything ready?]
ASSISTANTS: Clear!
Just as we suspected, the seared steak has reached 140 degrees first, so we will remove said steak and allow it to rest for 5 minutes. We'll be back for that one.
AB: Clear?
ASSISTANTS: Clear!
I see that it required 4 more minutes for this steak to get up to 140 degrees. Time to extract. We'll also let this one rest for several minutes. Now will all this time differential have an effect on our final experiment? Only time will tell.
AB: Clear?
ASSISTANTS: Clear!
And now, the moment of truth.
AB: Let's weigh them, fellas!
| Very interesting. As we see, steak "A", which began the day at 307 grams, is now down to 266 grams, for a net loss of 41 grams. And that is 13 percent of its total body weight. Okay? Roasted, rested, 13 percent loss. |
266 |
|
| Steak "B", on the other hand began the day at 296 grams. It's now down to 237 grams. That's a net loss of 59 grams, or 19 percent of its body weight. Okay? |
237 |
|
| So the seared, roasted and rested steak, 19 percent loss. The roasted and rested, 13 percent loss. |
Roasted Steak 13% loss |
Seared Steak |
Does it seem like a big deal? No, it's not a super-big deal, but it does prove a point. What's the point? Well, the point is, is that heat damages cells. And when cells are damaged, they lose moisture. It's just that simple. So obviously, searing doesn't seal juices. That's just another myth busted ... Smashed! I meant, I meant smashed.
Searing may no seal in juices but it does produce alot [sic] of flavor!
For those who monitor kitchen-based urban legends, reports of birds being killed by non-stick pans rank right up there with alligators in the New York sewer. For instance: June 6, 2001, Mariner's Rest Retirement Home.
GUEST: Captain Jefferson Quint
Polly the
Parrot
One Captain Jefferson Quint was in the midst of preparing his and his parrot's favorite dinner, blackened Spam, by heating up a new non-stick pan that he had received from his daughter as a birthday gift. Suddenly, and for no apparent reason ...
POLLY: [was sitting atop Quint's shoulder falls to the
ground dead]
QUINT: [picks up the bird in horror]
The old sailor rushed his bird to the vet, but it was too late.
An autopsy revealed that the bird died from fumes given off by the polytetrafluoroethylene—or PTFE—coating on the pan, when it crossed the 500 degree Fahrenheit line. You see, birds, especially exotics like parrots, are extremely vulnerable to toxic gases. That's why right up to the dawn of the 20th century, miners took canaries with them down into the coal mines to act as kind of living gas detectors. They knew that if the bird died, it was time to clear out.
GUEST: Coal Miner
COAL MINER: Hi, birdie. Say hi, birdie. Ho ho, you're nappin'. Wakey-wakey. I said, wakey-wakey! Wakey-wakey, little birdie! Wakey ... [keels over dead]
Of course, if these gases can kill a bird, what's that mean to us? Hmm.
Non-stick cookware accounts for over
80%
of the cookware purchased in America.
|
[AB tests the temperature of a non-stick skillet on the burner] |
The experiment continues ... |
AB: [to Assistants] Wow. 490 degrees. After only 3 minutes. Kill it.
Another minute and the birds
would be in serious trouble. And maybe the people too. See, some new research
has shown that these fumes can cause flu-like symptoms that can last up to a
couple of days in people. The key here, of course, is to not leave a non-stick
vessel over or under high heat while it's empty. When there's food in the pan,
of course, there's someplace for all that excess heat to go, so it's okay.
Still,
at my house I've got a few rules. I don't use non-stick for any cooking method
requiring a super-hot pan. I don't sear in it. I don't blacken in it. I don't
even like to sauté in non-stick. And I sure as heck would never broil anything
on a non-stick surface. Still, I own a lot of it. I like it. I've got muffin
tins, cake pans. Heck, I've even got a nice griddle here that I use for nothing
but making pancakes. But I never use it over anything but medium heat, okay?
So
what does it come down to here? Well, if the old sailor had preferred his meat
fried, rather than blackened, Polly would still be sitting on his shoulder.
ASSISTANT #1: It's the truth.
ASSISTANT #2: It's factual.
AB: So, pan fumes kill bird? This is no myth. This is a stone-cold food fact.
Know what this is? This is an instrument of torture. It's called a mushroom
brush. Now when you're first starting out in the restaurant business, you spend
a lot of time with one of these. And it's not a very good time. Now why would
you want to brush a mushroom? Well, because they grow in dirt. Well, actually
it's not dirt. It's compost. But it's pasteurized compost, so it's safe. But it
still doesn't taste very good. It's got to come off. So why not just wash it
off? Good question. Allow me to read from a respected culinary tome on the
subject. Ah, mushroom ... there.
"Mushrooms are extremely porous. And because of that, they will absorb any water or other moisture they are placed in. Because of this, they should never be washed, only cleaned with a fine bristle brush."
Which leads us back to the instrument of torture. So is this fact or is it fiction? Well, I for one believe there's a very, very easy way to find out.
|
Our experiment begins with 4 ounces of button mushrooms, which we will then move into a hand strainer set inside a bowl, alongside 4 other hand strainers in 4 other bowls, all containing 4 ounces of button mushrooms. Now to these, we will then add a liter apiece of water. |
4 Ounces Button Mushrooms 1 Liter Water |
AB: [to his Assistants] Except the one on the end. Leave the one on the end empty. Just go ahead. Pour that right on there, guys. Very nice.
The one
on the end, I have got other plans for. Excellent, excellent. We're just going
to let those soak. Now phase 1 is only going to be for 10 minutes. So I'm going
set my timer and walk away.
Ten minutes is up. So now we extract the mushrooms from the first bowl of water,
and allow them to drain very, very thoroughly, for at least 30 seconds. In the
meantime, I'm going to reset for another 10 minutes, and man the scales.
Now, if you remember, we started with 4 ounces of mushrooms, and now we have 4.2
ounces of mushrooms. That means that after a 10-minute soak in cold water, these
mushrooms only sucked up ... well, right around a teaspoon of water. And I'm
willing to bet that 90 percent of that is actually up inside the stems because
they're very fibrous and kind of vein-like. I'll be very interested to see what
another 10 minutes brings.
So another 10 minutes has elapsed. That means this next set
of mushrooms has been in the drink now for 20 minutes. We're going to let that
drain thoroughly before hitting the scales. And of course, we will set our clock
one more time for 10 minutes.
Now we see that what once was 4 ounces of mushrooms has now ballooned to 4.25
ounces of mushrooms. Very curious. Now if we can use the last batch as any kind
of indicator, that means that the extra 10 minutes of soak only brought in
another 0.05 ounces of water. Which is only really, I don't know, 10 drops
maybe. It'll be interesting to see what the next set says.
I, for one, am glad that the timed portion of this experiment is over. We now,
of course, extract the third batch of mushrooms, drain and weigh.
After a 30-minute soak, these 4 ounces of mushrooms now weigh 4.15 ounces. Now I
am willing to accept that differences in the individual mushrooms may have
resulted in this batch soaking up less than the 20-minute batch. But what's
important is that basically, after 5 minutes, these mushrooms stopped soaking up
water. All of them soaked up what is essentially a teaspoon of water. Very, very
interesting.
Now you may have noted that I have decided to weigh all of these
with the avoirdupois method, meaning ounces, pounds and what-not, instead of
metrically, as we did the steaks, and there's a very good reason for that, which
is that when I changed the battery in the scale, I forgot to flip the metric
thing. But it doesn't matter, we've learned something here. One last experiment,
and it has to do with those dry mushrooms over there.
Before we hand down the verdict on this whole mushroom-washing thing, I think
that we should see if there's a difference between soaking in cold water and
giving them a good spray.
AB: [turns on the sink faucet] Toss around a little.
ASSISTANT: [tosses the mushrooms under the
water in a sieve]
After all, this is how most of
us who would wash mushrooms, would wash them at home. Great. Drain, then we
weigh.
After a cold blast of water, our 4 ounces of mushrooms weigh 4.2 ounces. Exactly
the same as the mushrooms that soaked for 10 minutes. Curious.
So as it turns
out, mushrooms do soak up a little, teeny-weentsie bit of water, but it doesn't
matter whether they get a quick spray or a 10-minute soak, or really, even a
30-minute soak. They just don't take in much water. So I don't know about you,
I'm going to wash my mushrooms, and I'm going to consider this myth smashed
to bits.
The cell walls of
mushrooms are made of chitin, the
same substance that makes up an insect's
exoskeleton.
[examining something with a magnifying glass] Mmm. Interesting.
[startled] Hey, have you ever cooked pasta? Of course you have. And I bet
you've heard that old saying about the fact that adding oil to the water will
keep the noodles from sticking together, right? I mean, pasta purveyors and
recipe writers have been telling us this for centuries. And given the lubricative powers of oil, it does make sense. But making sense don't make it
so. I think it's time to either uphold a culinary truth or smash another myth.
|
Here we have 128 ounces, that is, 1 gallon of water. To that, we are going to add 1 tablespoon of olive oil. And I'm using basil olive oil here because it's nice and green and will show up later. For flavor, we will also add a couple of heavy pinches of kosher salt. We will put this to high heat and, because we would like for this to come to a boil as quickly as possible, we will apply a lid. |
1 Gallon Water + 1 Tbs. Olive Oil 2 Heavy Pinches of Kosher |
|
There. We have serious boilage. So we will add one-half pound of pasta. And we'll just push that down with our trusty tongs, and we will drop the heat a couple of clicks to medium-high and let this cook until it's al dente. |
1/2 Pound Pasta |
AB: [hands the tongs to an Assistant] There you go, gentlemen.
[time passes]
AB: [takes a strand of pasta out of the water] Here, taste ... [notes the Assistants are wearing masks and can't taste] Oh, never mind.
[eats the noodle] Mmm. That's perfect. Now what we have to do is separate the water from the pasta, and the oil from the water. This would be very easy if we had a laboratory-style centrifuge, but we're on a budget here. So we'll have to try something else.
AB: Lid it.
AB & ASSISTANTS: [dump the pasta and the
water in to a colander which is on top of a very long, graduated tube to]
Excellent, excellent! Now all we have to do is let the pasta drain, and then
give just a few minutes for the oil to rise to the top. Excellent.
Hmm. Let's see. Our oil column is one-quarter inches deep and 2 inches across,
so pi-r-squared times cubic inches ... Blah, blu-blah, bu-blah.
AB: Do you have it? Do you
have it? Do you have it? Do you have it?
AT: [hands calculations to AB]
Excellent. That means that what we have
here is 0.43 ounces of olive oil. That means that we actually recaptured about
85, maybe 86 percent of the original oil. Which means that all this water and
all that pasta up there has managed to absorb—or in another way possess—only
about half a teaspoon, maybe, of oil, which I seriously doubt is enough to
lubricate each and every one of those noodles. Of course, there could be another
reason for putting oil in pasta water. Come on.
Say you come home and you're hungry, so you put on a pot of water for pasta. You
bring it to a boil, then you put the pasta in. Then it's not boiling anymore. So
you put on a lid. Then you turn around, and you find this big, nasty mess
happening. See that big pile of bubbles? That happens because as it cooks, the
pasta washes off starch into the water and that changes the surface tension
creating this big foam. It's kind of like when you go to the beach on a windy
day and you see those big things of foam on the waves; only that's protein and
this is starch.
Now if you were to add a good bit of oil to the water before you
started this whole process, then there's a very good chance that the chemical
bonds in the starch would get so lubricated that the bubbles couldn't form. No
bubbles, no foam, no boiling over. And let's face it. That doesn't look very
much like good eats. The more practical answer to the problem, really, though,
is to simply use a bigger pot and more water, okay? That way the noodles have
plenty of room to move around so they cook nice and evenly. The starch
dissipates to the point that they just ... there's no bubblicious-ness in them
... at all ... if you know what I mean. No bubbles.
Anyway, my rule, at least in my
house, is that I never cook in less than half a gallon of water, and that is
when I only have 2 servings worth. If I've got more than 2 servings, I go with a
full gallon of water, and I make sure that I've got a pot that has at least 2,
and even better would be 3 inches of open space between the water and the top of
the pot. That way my noodles never stick together and I never have this kind of
nasty mess.
And so, another myth bites the dust.
Do not rinse pasta after
cooking. Rinsing washes
away the starch that helps sauces to adhere.
[surfing the internet] Great Scott! Microwave Implicated in Exploding Water Mishap! This I've got to see.
GUEST: Jeff Hudson, Microwave Super Freak
[pulls a measuring cup of hot water out of the microwave, it doesn't explode] Mmm. I don't know. I think we've got another myth on our hands. [knock on door]
AB: Come in.
JEFF: Hey Alton, what are you doing?
AB: Hey, come on in, Jeff!
It's my friend Jeff.
AB: Say Jeff, you're a microwave
freak, aren't you?
JH: I'm more of a microwave super-freak.
AB: Excellent. Well maybe you can help me. I read on the internet that I could
make this cup of water blow up.
JH: Not with that container.
AB: What kind of container do I need?
JH: What you need is one of these. [glass
container full of water]
AB: Excellent. Okay, what do I do?
JH: Take the lid off.
AB: Okay.
JH: Put that baby in there for 3 minutes on high.
AB: Okay, 3 minutes on high.
| [the water spins around in the microwave and explodes out the top] |
Professionals in a closed ??? [editor note: FN graphics covered the GE text, any help on the actual wordage would be appreciated] |
AB: Wow. Jeff, what just happened here?
JH: Spontaneous boiling.
AB: What's that?
JH: Superheating the water: taking the temperature of the water above the
boiling point with no bubbles.
AB: How did this happen?
JH: With a vessel like this, you have no nucleation sites on the inside ...
AB: What's a nucleation site?
JH: It's a scratch on the inside, a place where the molecules of the water can
collect, create steam.
AB: Okay, so it's kind of like a bubble birthplace.
JH: Exactly.
AB: Okay, what about the shape of the bottle? Does that make a difference?
JH: The shape of the bottle's important. You have a very small surface area at
the top. It keeps the water very still, very stable.
AB: Ah, still and stable right up until it blows out all over my microwave. I
mean, what happens then?
JH: Well, you've loaded so much energy into the water ...
AB: Mm, hm.
JH: ... that it just becomes one big bubble.
AB: And then ... [makes explosion sounds]
JH: All over the place.
AB: ... all over the place. So what can I do in everyday life to prevent this
from happening?
JH: Well first of all, use a container that has a very wide opening at the top.
AB: Okay.
JH: Heat it for about a minute. Stop. Give it a stir.
AB: Okay.
JH: Heat it the rest of the way.
AB: Okay, so if I'm going to boil water, I should stop it every minute or
two,
give it a stir, and do it in a wide-mouthed vessel.
JH: Exactly. Just give it moving.
AB: Excellent.
So. It seems that we are not dealing with a myth here. The exploding microwave water is a cold, hard food fact.
Well there you have it. The truth, when it comes to conventional culinary wisdom,
isn't always 100 percent true. You know, cooking is both a science and an art.
But that doesn't mean it ever has to be mysterious. There are answers in every
kitchen, just waiting to be discovered.
In other words, the truth is out there! And it tastes good.
AB: [to his Assistants] So, guys, you ready to go try that
liquid-oxygen-in-the-grill myth? Huh?
ATS: [they start doing the happy dance]
AB: Yeah. All right. Go set it up. Go set it
up. I'll be there in a minute.
See you next time on Myth Smashers ... and Good Eats.
AB: I'm coming, wait up!
Transcribed by Mike DiRuscio
Proofread by Michael Menninger
Last Edited on 08/27/2010
