Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Discord Now Fully Linked With 420chan IRC

Baking at low temp

Reply
- Wed, 07 Aug 2019 00:26:41 EST EOmupQCb No.159417
File: 1565152001373.jpg -(49880B / 48.71KB, 500x454) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Baking at low temp
Let say the same casserole goes in the oven, one for 175c 30 minutes, the other 75c for 3-4 hours or however long for it to get the same as the 175c one. The purpose is to preserve the nutrients in the food. Can baking something at 75c become as good as the 175c one if its kept in long enough, or is it simply too low temp.. I wanna find a sweet spot to bake food and at the same time not destroying nutrients like 175c would.
>>
Rashma Beharry - Wed, 07 Aug 2019 09:09:25 EST l+OSJ56d No.159418 Reply
>>159417
assuming doneness is achieved, the internal temp is going to be more or less the same. the purpose for higher heat is to produce a crust either on top or in the pan, and you're right, it takes some dialing in to get right, depending on how thick the casserole is, and what type of pan you have, mostly.
>>
Tyler Florence - Wed, 07 Aug 2019 20:59:27 EST YQlwy3JF No.159422 Reply
>>159417
75C is never gonna get any kind of browning. That needs a high temp (it's called the maillard reaction and only starts at like 150C.

What nutrients are you concerned about? Yes, high heat can destroy vitamin C and some others. But it's not total, and as long as you're not sailing across an ocean you should be fine.

I googled some shit just to make sure I'm not totally off-base, and I found this pretty interesting: https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/ask-well-does-boiling-or-baking-vegetables-destroy-their-vitamins/ This is also good: https://www.finecooking.com/article/the-right-way-to-cook-vegetables
>>
Hitlers sister - Thu, 08 Aug 2019 19:36:38 EST EOmupQCb No.159424 Reply
I dont have a thermostat thing but how many degrees you think a consistent level 6 on the stove is for a 1-12 level heat. Also does the enzymes get recked immediately as it goes above the 40-50celcius mark? if I just wanna heat up some homemade burger for example with no oil and have it for 70-90c 2 mins on each side, is that little time enough for nutrients to have been rekd?
>>
Bobby Flay - Thu, 08 Aug 2019 20:19:27 EST 5WdELw/2 No.159427 Reply
>>159424
I think you are making a much bigger deal about nutrient loss through cooking than you need to be

just put more vegetables in your food before cooking it and you will make up for what you lose
>>
Hitlers sister's son - Thu, 08 Aug 2019 21:27:30 EST EOmupQCb No.159428 Reply
1565314050881.jpg -(744468B / 727.02KB, 760x1140) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Think its possible to yield the same results baking a lasagna at 80-100c for 40-80minutes as one would to bake it for 175c for like 25 minutes? Vegetables are "alkaline" sure but its not really alkaline if too much acidity forms via high temperatures,, basically i want to find the lowest efficient temperature (except having it in longer) to make the finished product be like a regular 175-200c bake..
>>
Martha Stewart - Fri, 09 Aug 2019 14:35:17 EST ULThOzT3 No.159431 Reply
>>159428
>vegetables are "alkaline"
What does this even mean, and how could you even say that on such a broad basis?
Why would it even matter?

But the main thing I wanted to write, just accounting for heat seems a bit misguided, I'd assume vitamin/nutrient/whatever loss would also depend on how long the materials are exposed to heat. I remember reading somewhere that hot & fast rather than low and slow is better for keeping vitamins/nutrients/whatever.

How much is left in the food isn't all that matters either though, for some vegs (dont remember which) cooked ones still get more yum good healthy stuff into your body because even though the levels in the food is reduced it's that much easier for your body to get it out of the food.

>TL;DR
Focusing in on heat as being all that matters won't give you the results you want.
But if you still want to it'd be much more effective to just go raw-food-dude instead and just get to the logical end-game of low-heat-cooking, no heat at all.
>>
Antonin Carême - Fri, 09 Aug 2019 16:33:57 EST 4eRkTgp5 No.159432 Reply
>>159428
> i want to find the lowest efficient temperature (except having it in longer) to make the finished product be like a regular 175-200c bake..
You're not going to get browning below 140C. It's not gonna happen.

>Vegetables are "alkaline" sure but its not really alkaline if too much acidity forms
You've fallen down a pseudoscience rat-hole, my friend. I know they sound convincing, but it's really not true. It's coffee-enema-tier science. Please just ignore those assholes. https://foodinsight.org/a-basic-examination-of-the-alkaline-diet/



ALL THAT BEING SAID, if you want to cook food low+slow temps, look into sous vide. You're not gonna get a casserole from it, but it's an interesting cooking method.
>>
Bobby Flay - Fri, 09 Aug 2019 17:36:31 EST 5WdELw/2 No.159434 Reply
>>159431
>for some vegs (dont remember which) cooked ones still get more yum good healthy stuff into your body because even though the levels in the food is reduced it's that much easier for your body to get it out of the food.

yeah this right here, you need to break down the strong plant cell walls of the veggies for your body to actually absorb the goodness inside otherwise you are just shitting all your nutrients out
>>
Jacques Pépin - Fri, 09 Aug 2019 20:48:15 EST DFXMoKF5 No.159435 Reply
>>159432
As far as I understand, the Alkaline diet is BS, though the fact that foods have a short-term impact on the pH of your digestive tract is important when examining microflora groupings (which have a large effect on bodily health and absorption of nutrients). If you're interested in more on this, just ask and I'll chatter a bit.

But fashion diets aside, did anyone (OP included) read that article? It's complete shit.
>>
Jacques Pépin - Fri, 09 Aug 2019 20:52:17 EST DFXMoKF5 No.159436 Reply
I hate to double post but fuck it.
>>159434
>you need to break down the strong plant cell walls of the veggies for your body to actually absorb the goodness inside otherwise you are just shitting all your nutrients out
This is misleading. Our 10-mile long intestines and flat plant-annihilating molars are designed to handle nutrient absorption from plant foods. In fact, it's much harder for us to digest animal products than it is plant products.
>>
Guy Fieri - Fri, 09 Aug 2019 22:48:39 EST 5fo/KDi2 No.159438 Reply
>>159436
I mean its sorta relative, compared to herbivores we have rather poor nutrient extraction. Also
>10 miles of intestines
Uhhhh intestines are like 6-8m in length dude what the fuck are you talking about
>>
Paul Thalamas - Sat, 10 Aug 2019 09:15:02 EST Vfoqnhd8 No.159443 Reply
>>159436
Yeah our intestines vary from person to person but you don't know shit. Also as we developed cooking our stomach shortened. Like everything else about us, when we found a tool or technology that rendered it obsolete we dropped it. Huge intestines went the way of huge fangs and durable bodies. The more we can do without using our body the less energy to maintain and create us. We can't evolve fast enough to keep up with modern society because it changes every generation but it only takes a couple of thousand years to change to suit new lives well. see also: white people.

We have been cooking long enough that our appendix shrank. Why wouldn't anything else?
>>
Elizabeth Falkner - Sat, 10 Aug 2019 21:01:45 EST DFXMoKF5 No.159448 Reply
>>159438
>10 miles?!
If I remember my 6th grade science class, intestines are like 20 feet long. 50,000+ft is an exaggeration
>>159443
>you don't know shit
>Huge intestines went the way of huge fangs and durable bodies.
No, very long intestines have not gone anywhere, and our bodies can be conditioned to be incredibly durable. You do not know shit.
>>
>>
Tyler Florence - Sat, 10 Aug 2019 23:29:17 EST 5fo/KDi2 No.159452 Reply
>>159448
Are you trying to say that with proper diet and exercise we can achieve 10 mile long intestines? Cause idk what the fuck youre trying to say
>>
Alice Waters - Thu, 15 Aug 2019 05:15:19 EST tHhFruKv No.159494 Reply
>>159428
>Vegetables are "alkaline"
Most of them are actually at least slightly acidic, as are most fruits. your average carrot for example has a pH of about 4-5.
The only reason that veggies are considered "alkaline" in that meme diet is because saying that vegetables are unhealthy will immediately discredit it.

>>159417
In a casserole or a similar dish, most nutrients will survive. Take a casserole containing chicken for example:
With chicken (and pork), you want the dish to be at least 75c all the way through, to avoid risk of infection. This is also a rule in the industry...
The 175c for 30 minutes will usually heat the very outer layer to about 170-175c, but in the middle, your dish will be 75-80c - enough for the meat to be tender, yet safe to eat.
the 175c path will also allow some of the sugars in the outer layers of the food to caramellize and add flavour to the dish

As another example, take the dish in OPs pic related... it's a good example of a dish that needs the high temperature to work. From what I can see, it contains some light meat (chicken or pork), pasta, cheese and corn. The 175c and 30 mins will make sure to cook the meat properly, while giving the cheese that nice brown color and taste and making the corn nice and soft while still having some bite.

Now try the same dish at 75c for 3-4 hours:
  1. There's no guarantee that the meat will be properly cooked all the way to the center. Yes the surface temp will be 75c, but the temperature in the center is still going to be lower, as the dish itself, the sauce and the cheese will work as insulation.
  2. It's likely the top of the dish is going to be dry af and basically inedible. "cooking" at low temperatures like this for a long time dries out the food. Jerky for example is made at 50-75c for 6-8 hours.
  3. pasta and corn in the middle and the bottom of the pan is going to become mush, as the sauce will behave as a solvent due to its water content.

As for other cooking methods...
Boiling won't happen at much more than 100c unless you live on friggin' Venus. Most vitamins and other nutrients can withstand this temperature fine and will also survive being on the stove for an hour or two.
The purpose of (stir)frying is to induce the Maillard reaction and to caramellize the sugars contained in the food - it adds taste to the dish. While the surface of the pan can be in excess of 200c, the temperature in the center of a steak or a piece of stir fried vegetable is going to be much lower... you never fry something for more than a few seconds or minutes.
Many Asian stir-frys for example add most vegetables at the very end - they get a quick heating for that caramellization and to impart a bit of flavour - but remain nice and crunchy to give the dish some texture. Veggies rarely remain in the pan for more than a minute or two.

The aim of a majority of cooking methods does break down *some* nutrients, but makes it easier for the body to absorb the rest as it also helps break down some proteins and other long-chained molecules into components that the body can use. Keep in mind, we've been cooking long before we were called Homo Sapiens - the very art of cooking is thought to be a big reason behind our large brains. If done right, cooking can unlock more nutrients and other building blocks than a given food contains naturally. For the more heat-sensitive components, eat some fruit instead.
>>
Thomas Keller - Thu, 15 Aug 2019 09:07:59 EST DFXMoKF5 No.159499 Reply
>>159452
I'm not going to shit on you for posting while intoxicated, but basic reading comprehension is still on you.
>>159443
>durable bodies are gone
>>159448
>our bodies can be conditioned to be incredibly durable
I think it's pretty clear what's being refuted here.
nb

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.