Hacker News Reader

Comment by nicklovescode | Hacker News Reader

Sous vides are great because they actually allow you to measure things properly. Do you consider pressure cooking "modern" because that's also great. There's also some cool stuff you can do with a whipping siphon[0]

[0] https://www.chefsteps.com/classes/whipping-siphons/landing

View on HN

Pressure cooking isn't modern but is obviously enjoying a modern renaissance.

I have little issue with the methodology unless it's unreasonably expensive for unreasonable reasons (and I don't count sous vides here).

But things like molecular gastronomy are almost pure show - have you eaten many spheres or foams with your food? They're basically pointless from the perspective of taste.

Two responses: first, they're not pointless from the perspective of taste, because they impact how and when the components of the dish will engage your taste buds and nose; second, texture is a huge element of how you experience and enjoy food, which is why you don't take the best pizza in your city and stick it in a blender before consuming it.

You can do encapsulations and "caviars" and stuff in ways that are pointless, and a lot of coattail-following stunt cooks do that. But when Achatz or Dufresne decide to do something, there's usually a very well-thought-out reason for it.

Interesting molecular gastronomy idea: Take the carotene butter as mentioned, mix with tapioca maltodextrin to make a carrot flavored powder, then take carrot cake cupcakes with a buttercream frosting make with carotene butter and drizzle the powder on the frosting as a topping. I haven't tried this, but there should be enough carrot in one cupcake to turn your skin orange for a week.

You are generally correct that leaving in the same phase is not as interesting as changing phase.

That sounds amazing. You should make it and report back.

Taste is far from the only consideration in the sensualist approach to food. As just one counter-example, texture is a very big deal, and something with which the folks into molecular gastronomy do some very interesting things.

I don't doubt that it has a value, but I'd suggest that:

A. That value is overpriced in the market and B. It's more aesthetic than palpable

A. Price is a function of the buyer's willingness to pay it, not your sensibilities as an uninvolved observer or critic of the market. If it's too pricey for you, don't buy it. I, personally, think Bentleys are too expensive for a car, but I'm not buying one, so my opinion is immaterial.

B. This is a discussion of "taste" and similar preferences. Of course it's aesthetic.

Sure, I mentioned that it's my opinion already; I'm simply noting that the value is rooted less in taste (in the literal food sense) and more in aesthetic.

I'm not saying that the package is overvalued, but rather the underlying food that is; after all, it represents but a small - sometimes negligible - portion of the package as a whole.

That would probably be my list as well. And immersion circulators (for sous vide) can now be gotten for very reasonable prices as they've gone at least somewhat mainstream.

I use my circulator and my pressure cooker on a regular basis and play with the siphon from time to time.

In the ingredients department, I picked up a variety of thickeners etc. to experiment with but, to be honest, I haven't done a lot with them.

There are some good ideas and techniques in books like Modernist Cuisine at Home. There are also instructions for making an omelet that would probably take hours. I won't be doing that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com