Cooking for Geeks: Real Science, Great Hacks, and Good Food

by Jeff Potter

  Except that the outcome might not be as quantifiable or predictable when you’re cooking, but that’s the nonscientific part of me saying that cooking, to me, is both an art and a science. You need to know some fundamentals. It only takes one time making tomato sauce in a cast iron pan to realize that it’s not a good idea from a science point of view and from a taste point of view—it’s pretty darn awful to watch your sauce turn green and bubbly. So you need to understand the basic fundamentals of science in order to cook, but you don’t need to be a scientist in order to cook, and you need to accept the fact that your outcome might be a bit more random than if you were sitting in a computer lab.

  What are the basic science fundamentals that you see people failing to understand?

  I can tell you the place that I fail constantly is in baking. I’m not a baker, I’m not a measurer. I still don’t really understand the difference between baking powder and baking soda. I think understanding how acids react with all food is important. And understanding how salt reacts with foods, understanding things that are opposites. If something is too salty, you don’t necessarily put in something sweet in order to balance the flavor. Having a fundamental knowledge of those things enables you to cook without recipes and also to look at a recipe that might be faulty and figure out where the faults are.

  One of the assumptions that many cooks make, especially when they’re starting out, is that if it’s published in a cookbook, it must be true. Well, not true. Cookbooks are subject to bad editing, bad writing, and bad recipe testing. You can faithfully follow a recipe in a cookbook and at the end have something that goes right into the garbage disposal, and it’s not your fault. It might be your fault, but there’s an equally good chance that it’s a flaw in the recipe. If you know enough basics, you can look at a recipe and say, "Wait a minute, there must be a typo here, this just isn’t going to work."

  The first thing that I tell students when they come to cooking classes with me is to read the recipe all the way through. This is the biggest reason that people’s cooking goes awry; they do not read the recipe. You can’t start cooking without reading to the end and knowing where you’re going. The biggest, biggest piece of advice that I can give any cook starting out, and even a lot of experienced cooks, is to take a minute, breathe deeply, and read the recipe first. Know from the beginning where you think you want to end up. Don’t start out thinking you’re making a soup and halfway through find out you’re making a stew, because it’s a recipe for disaster. That’s not science; that’s common sense.

  I’m surprised at how often the people I interview say that it seems like people just aren’t using common sense.

  I think there are several reasons for that. One is a lack of confidence that comes from not having grown up around cooks so that you’re afraid to trust your instincts, whereas if you’ve grown up making cookies with your grandmother for your whole life, then a cookie recipe wouldn’t scare you. I think there’s some fear of failure there.

  I think there’s another thing that probably relates to science and common sense more than people realize: don’t poke at your food while you’re cooking it. If you have something cooking in a hot pan, and the recipe says either sauté it or cook until the onions are wilted or whatever it is, if you get in there with a spoon and you keep moving it around so that the food doesn’t have any chance to come into contact with the heat, whether you’re actually stirring or, as more often happens, poking, that food doesn’t ever cook. People see a recipe that says stir constantly; that doesn’t actually mean that you have to stir it so much that the food never gets hot. I have had to confiscate spatulas and spoons from my cooking students, set a timer and say, "Until the timer rings, you cannot stir the food again!"

  I teach adults, so these are people who have been feeding themselves for their whole lives, and yet when I take a look at where their downfall is on a recipe, it’s always two things: they haven’t read the recipe, and they’re not giving the food a chance.

  It does seem like there’s an American fetish with overstirring and poking.

  Judging by what I see in my classes, absolutely.

  Why do you think there’s a fear of cooking?

  Honestly, I see this more in younger people, people in their 20s and 30s. I think our entire way of raising kids, educating kids, all of the pressures that we read about to succeed, and whatever punishment there seems to be for failure, seems to have translated to the kitchen. Not only are you supposed to be great at your job and great at being a parent, but you’re supposed to be a gourmet cook; and if you’re not a gourmet cook, then the fault is yours. I think that’s really kind of sad. Julia Child had the right idea: you drop a chicken on the floor, you pick it up, you wipe it off, and you just carry on. We have come to take cooking too seriously. We’ve come to take ourselves too seriously.

  For me, once it stops being fun, I’m going to give it up, because I really do think that you should have a good time in the kitchen. I think you should make a mess in the kitchen. I think you should put some things down the disposal if nobody really should eat them, and then you should go out for pizza, and it’s all okay. We don’t let it be okay anymore. That’s me. That’s my rant.

  I’m surprised at how often the line of "you can always order pizza" comes up. That seems to be the universal go-to for when dinner ends up down the garbage disposal: just order pizza. So the secret to learning to cook in the kitchen is that it should be fun?

  I think it’s critical that it should be fun, and I understand that there is survival cooking and there’s the weekday cooking that I used to do when we had young kids at home, but even that should be fun, and the better you are at it—not in terms of creating gourmet meals but in terms of understanding how to cook, how the fundamentals work, and making it not a painful experience for the cook—the better it is for everybody. If you’ve created your food with fun, and created it with or for people you care about, or just because you want to sit down and watch Top Chef on Wednesday night or whatever it is, if you’ve had a good time doing it, your food reflects that.

  Butternut Squash, Apple, and Vadouvan Soup

  1 medium (750g) butternut squash, peeled and cut into 2-inch / 5 cm cubes

  1 small (70g) red onion, peeled and chopped

  1–2 tablespoons (12–25g) olive oil

  1 large (150g) tart apple such as Macoun, cored but not peeled, roughly chopped

  1 tablespoon (6g) vadouvan

  1 tablespoon (6g) hot curry powder (if your curry powder isn’t hot, add ½ teaspoon hot sauce in addition)

  2 cups (475g) chicken broth or vegetable broth

  2–3 teaspoons (14–20g) honey, to taste

  2–3 teaspoons (10–15g) lemon juice, to taste

  ½ teaspoon (1g) fresh ground black pepper, or more to taste

  In a large stockpot, place the squash, onion, and olive oil. Over medium heat, cook, stirring frequently, until the onion is translucent and the edges of the squash are starting to soften. Add the apples, and cook two minutes more. Add vadouvan and curry powder and cook, stirring constantly, for two minutes, until the spices are lightly toasted and fragrant. Add the chicken broth. Bring to a boil, then reduce heat to low and cook for 20 minutes or until the squash is quite soft.

  Remove the pot from heat and, using an immersion blender, purée the soup until smooth. If you don’t have an immersion blender, purée the soup in batches in a blender or food processor and return the soup to the pot. Stir in honey, lemon juice, and black pepper. Return the pot to the stove, and cook over low heat for five minutes. Taste, adjust seasoning, and serve hot.

  RECIPE USED BY PERMISSION OF LYDIA WALSHIN

  * * *

  [1] "Right" answer: use the chocolate to polish the bottom of the can to a mirror-like finish, and then use the can as a parabolic reflector to focus sunlight onto a dry twig. My answer: trade the can of soda for a light from the nearest smoker; eat the bar of chocolate.

  Cooking for One

  What about us
geeks who eat dinner solo? Cooking for one presents a number of challenges, especially if you don’t want to spend too much time or money. Without someone to help share in the cooking and cleanup work, more complicated recipes become less attractive. And the cost of ingredients doesn’t scale down linearly, meaning that recipes with longer ingredient lists become less affordable. On the plus side, cooking for yourself has the great advantage of allowing you to truly experiment and improvise without worrying about what others think. Pasta and fish? Chicken in a red wine sauce? Chocolate and beets? The sky’s the limit.

  Preparing a batch of a particular common ingredient can also save you a lot of time over the course of a week. If you’re trying to save money or watching what you eat, try cooking a large batch of chicken breasts or stir-fried tofu on the weekend. Having a batch of precooked ingredients can help challenge you, too. This can be a great way to play with flavors and learn about new combinations as well, since chicken or tofu day-in, day-out by itself can get pretty darn boring. You’ll end up being driven to experiment with seasonings!

  One way you can reduce the price of ingredients is to amortize it: plan a number of meals in a row that use common perishable ingredients. Unused tomatoes and parsley purchased for a chicken dish can be used with eggs the next morning or in a lunchtime salad. Sticking to specific types of cuisine such as Italian also increases the amount of overlap in ingredients between recipes, since the regional variation in ingredients is much smaller. Another trick: if your grocery store has a salad bar, you can sometimes find the ingredient you’re looking for. If I’m making a pizza for myself, I’ll sometimes skip buying a whole red bell pepper and yellow bell pepper and snag just the amount I need from the salad bar at my grocery store. The best part? Presliced and already roasted. And because of the "buffet" pricing at the salad bar, I’ve sometimes found things to be cheaper!

  Look for oven-safe plates and bowls. You can cook items like chicken tenderloins directly in the bowl, meaning fewer dishes to wash. Be careful with the hot bowl, though!

  Leftover sauces, and sometimes entire dishes, can be recycled as components in entirely new dishes. (School cafeteria food!) Chicken and vegetables from one dinner can be recycled into chicken noodle soup. Tomato sauce made for a pasta dish can be reused in lasagna the next night, and the lasagna can be reused as an unexpectedly delicious filling in omelets. Leftover cake scraps or bread can be turned into bread pudding. Sandwiches are a great vehicle for odds and ends. Using dinner leftovers for breakfast can be a huge, untapped resource for creativity as well. A slice of pizza can be turned into a breakfast pizza by cracking an egg on top and putting it under the broiler for a few minutes. Next time you’re in the kitchen, open the fridge door and scrounge around for leftovers, doing your best to see past the functional fixedness that we talked about earlier.

  If you do find that cooking for one ends up being too expensive or time consuming, consider finding a cooking buddy with whom you can split the cost of groceries and cooking duties. Getting together with someone on a regular basis to spend a few hours cooking a few days’ worth of meals can also help ensure that you eat and socialize regularly, especially for the busy geek.

  Cooking for Others

  Anytime you have someone else in your home, you’re the host and are responsible for taking care of their comfort. This doesn’t mean stuffy formality. Even a quick "Hey, good to see you, help yourself to a drink in the kitchen!" goes a long way toward telling the guest what’s acceptable. Your responsibility starts the moment you extend the invitation and even includes those times when you’re not cooking. Inviting people over for a party with "food and drinks"? Make it clear whether you’re serving an actual meal or just appetizers.

  The most important responsibility you have when cooking for others is keeping them safe from allergic reactions and foodborne illnesses. Ask ahead of time if your guests have any food allergies. Being aware of dietary restrictions and of food aversions or intolerances in advance will spare you last-minute surprises. If you are cooking for someone with a true food allergy, you should take extra precautions to avoid triggering an allergic reaction.

  Note

  Take a look at the appendix for information on food allergies and common substitutions.

  You might find some guests are vague regarding whether they have an aversion or an allergy, as some people think of food sensitivity as an allergy and don’t realize the burden they put chefs through by overstating their needs. I’ve known individuals who get gas from consuming too much bread. This doesn’t make them gluten intolerant, however! Likewise, lactose intolerance is different from lactose allergy: a small amount of lactose will not hurt lactose-intolerant individuals (depending upon their tolerance, they might even be able to taste a milk-based dish without discomfort), whereas those with a true allergy might go into anaphylactic shock and die. When a guest tells you that she is allergic to something, check if it is an intolerance or an outright allergy.

  Closely related to food allergies is food preference. Sometimes, you’ll be cooking for guests who are following restricted diets, either limiting certain types of foods—e.g., vegetarians (no fish or meat), vegans (no animal products), lacto-ovo-pescetarians (milk, eggs, and seafood okay, but no other meats)—or limiting certain classes of foods—e.g., avoiding saturated fats, simple carbs, or salty foods. Either way, in these cases, pick a menu that keeps various side dishes in different serving containers—putting grilled veggies in one bowl, bread in another, roasted chicken in another—as opposed to, say, making a stew or casserole. You don’t need to plan the entire meal around the one individual on a restricted diet, but you should have at least one dish that is suitable. This allows you the freedom to choose anything from your standard repertoire for most of your guests, while still showing consideration and addressing the needs of that individual.

  Beyond the actual menu planning, think about doing something special to show that you care. Even a minor touch—a tablecloth, special plates, anything beyond your daily ritual—will communicate thoughtfulness. One of the easiest ways of showing consideration is to have a few appetizers on hand for your guests to snack on before starting the meal. Simple things like bread and olives, pita and hummus, or fresh fruit are quick, easy, and useful for guests who are hungry before the meal is ready or while you wait for remaining guests to arrive—or, in the event of a kitchen meltdown, the pizza delivery guy.

  Speaking of kitchen meltdowns, don’t try out new recipes with first-time guests. When it comes to picking a recipe, choose something that you’re comfortable making. You’ll be more relaxed cooking a dish that you’re familiar with, which will translate to a more relaxed atmosphere for everyone. This isn’t to say that experimenting with dishes needs to be limited to those times when you’re cooking alone. I certainly enjoy trying out new things with friends, because their feedback helps me understand how others react to new dishes.

  Restaurants do the same thing, using their staff as beta testers: one cook will use leftover bits from the normal meal service to make a "family meal," and the better experiments can end up on the menu. Just keep in mind who your guests are and their general openness to experiments. If you’re not sure, stick with the familiar.

  Pick a recipe that’s in line with what’s expected by your guests. Making sushi for someone who likes his meat well done is probably too much of a stretch. Some dishes lend themselves well to a more casual, family-style meal (e.g., lasagna), while others are better suited to being plated in the kitchen, where you can spend time on the presentation.

  Finally, choose recipes that leave you time to spend with the guests. After all, they’re there to see you! Depending upon the complexity of the meal and the number of people you are cooking for, try to pick recipes that have a distinct prep phase that you can do in advance of your guests arriving. I survived hosting a four-course dinner party for 40 by prepping individual servings of duck confit sugo (see Duck Confit Sugo, earlier in this chapter) and individual chocolate cake
s in small ramekins. As people arrived, I snatched the appropriate number of ramekins from the fridge and tossed them into the oven. This left me time to work on the other courses and still hang out with my guests. (I used the ramekins a few weeks later for making Christmas fruitcakes that I sent off to my friends.) This attention to planning will limit the amount of attention you need to give to the preparation of food and will free you up to interact and socialize with your guests. After all, it should be fun!

  Adam Savage on Scientific Testing

  PHOTO CC-BY-SA-3.0 PORKRIND ON EN.WIKIPEDIA.COM

  Adam Savage is co-host of Discovery Channel’s MythBusters, a popular science program that examines rumors, myths, and conventional wisdom, "putting them to the test" with a scientific approach.

  How do you go about testing a myth?

  One of the earliest things we realized on the show is that you always have to have something to compare to. We would try to come up with an answer like: is this guy dead, is this car destroyed, is this an injury? And we would be trying to compare it to an absolute value, like X number of feet fallen equals dead. The problem is the world is very spongy and nonuniform, and trying to nail down a value like that can be really difficult. So we always end up doing relative tests. We end up doing a control under regular circumstances and then we test the myth under identical circumstances, and we compare the two things. In that comparison, we get to see our results.