I have been following Barilla's passive cooking recommendations[0] for years to great effect. You boil the pasta for a short amount of time and then turn off the stove and put the lid on. Takes a tiny amount longer than leaving the stove on the entire time but reduces energy use.
Pasta Cooking Time
201–210 of 211 posts
Re: Pasta Cooking Time
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
How hard is your water and how high above sea level do you live?
Very soft. Elevation is nearly sea-level.
Well, objectively very soft water cooks things a tiny bit slower than harder water, but being close to sea level should cook things a little faster. It probably is down to either taste or the labeling on your pasta.
Re: Pasta Cooking Time
#203I don't tend to look at the clock for pasta. I just eyeball it and sample it. You can sort of see the pasta turning whiter from the outside in. Especially with my regular goto brands, I can see when it is done. I fish some out with a fork to verify usually when it's getting close. And I generally mix it with some sauce and it might sit in there for some minutes. So the cooking process actually continues after you rem…
> use less water I agree, but want to note that this requires more actively stirring the pasta. The reason for the suggestion of lots of water is it allows the pasta to move freely on its own, meaning it stirs itself with the motion of the boiling water. Stirring the pasta is important to make it cook more evenly and to help it release starch into the water.
The water will indeed cool down when you put the pasta in. Using a lid can help with this though and bring it back to boiling quicker. I usually don't bother with this. And the pasta will still absorb water if it's close to boiling instead of boiling. And since I check visually and by tasting whether it is done it's not that big of a deal. Stirring is part of that. I do that in any case to make sure things don't stick to the bottom.
Anyway, that's just my process. There is no wrong or right here. And you brought up a fair point of the pasta cooling down the water. My mode with this is that a lot of Italian nonnas wouldn't have a lot of fancy kitchen equipment anyway. Like fancy timers or even a clock. A lot of Italian recipes is primarily about good ingredients and celebrating those. Not about tools, techniques, or Michelin star nonsense. So, I try not to overthink it. If it tastes good, I'm happy.
Re: Pasta Cooking Time
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear your point on formalization, but I do find that understanding the science behind various techniques has helped my ability to Freeform in the kitchen significantly.
While it's an interesting article, I don't think there's much science going on. There's one variable barely controlled for, compared to the dozen or so variables which weren't controlled.
This is responding to Food Lab.
Re: Pasta Cooking Time
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
This whole thread is full of some serious pasta snobs. I always find it funny how upset people get with others who don't want to do whatever task is being discussed in the purest form. I use a timer for my pasta so I can do other things while it cooks, and it isn't that big a difference to me.
This always seems to happen for whatever reason with any food-or-drink-related topic. Articles about coffee will attract the coffee snob, dripping with disdain for drip coffee (consuming which is apparently the moral equivalent of downing urine); articles about stovetop cooking will attract the cast-iron aficionado who will tell you how easy it is to have a perfectly-seasoned pan if you just follow this seven-step pr…
I feel like this Onion article captures the vibe: https://theonion.com/man-on-internet-almost-falls-into-world...
Re: Pasta Cooking Time
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you make pasta frequently, you can just reserve the pasta water on the stove and cook more pasta in it the next day. I usually just leave it out with a cover on, it's fine for a day, probably two. For whole grain pastas I find this really helps get a more satisfying flavor and consistency. Sometimes I'd put the whole pot in the fridge after it cooled to room temperature and it'd keep for a bit so I could use it fo…
This risks bacillus cereus poisoning
I have no idea what that is so maybe it already got me!
I just go by smell, you can definitely tell when the water has turned.
Does the bacillus not die during the reboiling? That's some hearty stuff
Re: Pasta Cooking Time
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
This risks bacillus cereus poisoning
I have no idea what that is so maybe it already got me! I just go by smell, you can definitely tell when the water has turned. Does the bacillus not die during the reboiling? That's some hearty stuff
When the temperature rises, the bacteria form spores that can survive harsh conditions, and then when it's cooler it starts growing again. The toxin that this produces can survive reheating. It's more commonly found on rice, but it can also be found on pasta.
Re: Pasta Cooking Time
#208Pasta is a bit like toast. It's undercooked for most of the time and only ready for a tiniest fraction of the time. The rest of the time it's overdone. Although I heard a reason for the toast thing the other day. As it slowly toasts it gets a tiny bit darker. Once darker it doesn't reflect as much energy, hence absorbs it and result is exponential roasting levels.
Overdone toast, no such thing; the blacker the better. [Dirty looks from SO.]
I once heard that burnt toast was carcinogenic. Might want to check that.
Re: Pasta Cooking Time
#209Anyone know the name of that microscope? It doesnt look like it passes the light thru the way Im used to seeing [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microscope#/media/File:Ukraini...
That's МБИ-3 See https://www.microscopemuseum.eu/catalogues/LOMO_1970s_Micros...
I was asking about the microscope in the article, not in my link. I linked only to show that the one in the article is unlike what Im used to.
But thanks for the link, such a cool find :-)
Re: Pasta Cooking Time
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's МБИ-3 See https://www.microscopemuseum.eu/catalogues/LOMO_1970s_Micros...
I was asking about the microscope in the article, not in my link. I linked only to show that the one in the article is unlike what Im used to. But thanks for the link, such a cool find :-)
well, glad you liked it
fwiw one can make a microscope out of a webcam and a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlarger with some duct tape and thermal glue. It won't do 3500x, but will be comparable to those small USB ones.
Edit: I actually have one where focus is contolled by the camera being mounted on a 3.5" floppy drive chassis in place of the drive head. that was some fun project to do. But don't use polish enlarger lenses, soviet are the best.