Spicy Roasted Chickpeas
Picnic Recipes Galore
Corner-Store Party Food on the Fly
9 Chili Recipes, Bison to Vegan
How to Choose the Best Strawberries
Sausage Recipes of the Month
Slate does everyone a favor by plainly stating something any serious—or, hell, any casual—home cook already knows: The cooking time listed on any given recipe is rarely accurate and is almost invariably an understatement.
The story's a good read, and it contains this journalistic gemstone: "But it was Chris Kimball, editor of Cook's Illustrated, who cut to the heart of it. 'Utter bullshit,' he said when I asked what he thought of cooking times." Kimball derides cooking times as "marketing," and that's certainly part of it. Calling any recipe the "30-minute anything" is both a lazy, easy headline and an enticing promise.
But there's more to it than that. Ruth Reichl, interviewed for the story, reveals that Gourmet's cook times come from the pro cooks who have drilled the recipe into the ground, not the fumbly, relatable "cross testers" who only cook it once. Well, yes, that might be a factor.
And beyond the realms of the cynical (marketing) and the process-related (expert testers), there must just be the fact that trying to do anything in the real world is inevitably going to be somewhat tough. You've got to scavenge your kitchen for specific dishes. Perhaps you have to wash specific dishes. Perhaps you're not the world's fastest dicer of carrots, or you get easily distracted by things as varied as demanding children, the need for some kind of immediate snack, or easily available alcohol.
Two sensible lines of thinking emerge from the story: It's time to drop the cooking times in favor of a ballpark estimate, or it's time to just quit the estimates altogether. Personally, I vote for the latter. The whole thing's a crazy subjective mess until you've cooked a few dozen recipes; at that point, your guess is as good or better than anyone else's.
Image source: Flickr member wwarby under Creative Commons
It's a guideline, I think. There is a big difference between a 30 minute recipe and a 90 minute one. In reality, if I need a meal on the table in 30 minutes, I will fall back on a standby, not fool around with a new recipe. Mostly, I have more important things to get upset about.
I really prefer it when recipes list specific times such as "chill time" and "simmer time" or anything that can potentially be a relatively (YMMV of course) concrete detail.
Anyone who believes cooking time also believes everything Glenn Beck says.
That's the kind of info that's useful. I'd also really like recipes to state upfront as part of the recipe the pans, pots and implements I'm going to need, beyond measuring spoons and cups. And if I'm going to need to measure dry ingredients before wet ones so I don't have to wash and dry that measuring cup, keep that in mind as you organize your prep list.
http://pakhot.com
I think they make up BS short times so people won't be intimidated and think a recipe is "too complicated."
How would you time it? It's one thing to dump a cup of chopped celery in a bowl. It's another to dig a bunch of celery out of the fridge, wash it, sharpen the knife, find the cutting board, etc. Don't get me started on chicken recipes, where you have to wash your hands constantly between...+READ
I think they make up BS short times so people won't be intimidated and think a recipe is "too complicated."
How would you time it? It's one thing to dump a cup of chopped celery in a bowl. It's another to dig a bunch of celery out of the fridge, wash it, sharpen the knife, find the cutting board, etc. Don't get me started on chicken recipes, where you have to wash your hands constantly between steps.
The real fraud in this area is on grocery items. They want you to think the kids will be eating in 5 minutes. If you ate frozen vegetables after steaming the short time most packages suggest, you may break a tooth.-COLLAPSE
Why don't they get one pro who's done it a lot of times, one relatively experienced amature cook who has never done that recipe before, one total cooking compentent, but normal newbie. Set them in the same kitchen with the same ingredients piled on one side and the same pots and pans laid out in the same places on the other and then turn them loose. Have them prep the ingredients, then start...+READ
Why don't they get one pro who's done it a lot of times, one relatively experienced amature cook who has never done that recipe before, one total cooking compentent, but normal newbie. Set them in the same kitchen with the same ingredients piled on one side and the same pots and pans laid out in the same places on the other and then turn them loose. Have them prep the ingredients, then start cooking, and then plate/serve. Time each section and average the three testers' results. You've got an average of prep time, less assembling all the ingredients together, the cooking time, and the total soup to service time which should include any resting time or finickly serving assembly times. Your cookbook would spell out the constraints and mention that, if you don't have your pantry and fridge well organized or stocked, and your pans and implements clean, organized and ready to go then your times will definitely vary. Also warn readers that the average the is a goal you'll likely reach the more times you do it.
I know the old Joy of Cooking I've got mentions in some recipies that, you want to try this recipe on a cool dry day, or that you need to have a lot of uninterrupted time, or that you should plan to stay nearby as that particular recipe needed regular tending but not constant fussing.
That's the kind of info that's useful. I'd also really like recipes to state upfront as part of the recipe the pans, pots and implements I'm going to need, beyond measuring spoons and cups. And if I'm going to need to measure dry ingredients before wet ones so I don't have to wash and dry that measuring cup, keep that in mind as you organize your prep list.
Some times I hate Recipe writers. They write the way recipes have always been written rather than looking at it as just another technical writing challenge. I know some folks prefer recipes that are written as lyric prose, but me, I want details, in logical order and I want to know what I'm getting into.
I write recipes so if I drop dead and my non-cooking husband really wants to make my enchilada sauce or country gravy and sausage, he could do it without too much trauma. All recipes should be written that way.-COLLAPSE
I think there needs to be some kind of ballpark cooking time info in a recipe. Too many people start planning something for dinner and then realize it's supposed to marinate overnight or chill for a couple of hours.
Why don't cookbooks just say "Minimum cooking + preparation time = 30 min"?
I like to see times listed, just so I have some idea. But it's the actual COOKING time that is the most useful. The 'prep time' is almost always laughable. Sometimes I see 'prep time' listed as five minutes, when in reality it is closer to 15.
as i've started teaching and writing recipes for beginning cooks, i struggle with written cooking and prep times. i'm always shocked that cutting up an onion can take several minutes for some folks. . .
I use the cook times. I find the ones that list "active cook time" and "inactive cook time" the most useful. If I've got 2 hours to spare, it's good to know before I tackle a new recipe that it has 3 hours rest time and I can quickly toss it aside and pick another.
Chris Kimball is a hypocrite, as I believe I have seen "The Best 30-Minute Recipe" cookbook by Cooks Illustrated in my library. Moving on, I agree with dropping the estimates completely. I never follow a recipe without reading through it anyway, so it is easy to calculate my own cooking time, including how long it will take me to prep each ingredient.