Does anyone actually know how to cook?

[Anonymous]

I recently checked through a few videos on youtube from some top chefs to see how they are roasting their chickens as I had bought a nice corn fed free range bird and I didn't find what I expected to find.

There are often many ways to get to a similar place with things at a moderate level of performance but my understand is that at the top levels of competition, when people really know what they are doing, when what they are doing is optimal, they are ALL doing the same thing, or trying to, the winner is whoever can execute the optimal path most accurately.

So when I get a different answer from 3 or 4 top chefs about how to do the same thing I can't help but conclude that no one knows what they are doing.

Whatever optimal is does not seem to have been identified.

[OfDeath]

I'm a lazy bastard, so meals you stick in the oven and get to watch TV and scull beers for an hour are my specialty. But roasting a chicken isn't that straightforward. It depends on the size.

But what I do is set the oven to 200°C. If you don't do stuffing, you can roast most chooks in 2 hours. If you stuff it, 2.5.

Get a large roasting tray which has a lid and get a rack like the kind you transfer a cake to cool it.

Rub olive oil and salt all over the chook and also put a bit of oil in the bottom of the tray. That will be for the vegetables. Put the rack on the bottom of the tray and put the chook on the rack (if you want stuffing, just make a mix of breadcrumbs, mixed herbs, onion, garlic, salt pepper and an egg to bind it all together mix it up, about a cereal bowl's worth and stuff it into the cavity of the bird before you put it in the oven). This ensures it doesn't stick to the tray. There is also another reason for doing this I'll get to later. Put the lid on for the first 35 minutes and then take it off and let the chicken roast uncovered for the rest of the time.

When you think there is about 50 minutes left, put the vegetables in around the sides of the rack. Other vegetables 10 minutes less than potatoes.

After the 2 or 2.5 hours is up, take it out to let it rest and while it is resting, use the fat which has dripped through the rack to make the gravy. Just scrape it out/pour it into a pot and add some flour and a little bit of boiling water to thicken and smooth it out while you stir.

Boom, delicious roast chicken.

[Asker]

Ok, thanks for sharing your technique.

This is the point though right, because what you have described is really quite a lot different from (?), 'the mainline' i suppose, most people seem to suggest something like 180°C for 90 mins.

There is also disagreement about covering or not or for how long etc.

It seems to me that there should be 1 objectively superior, optimal way of doing it if we had thoroughly explored the 'space' (the range of different ways of doing it).

Atm the best explanation for this seems to be that there is a personal preference of outcome similar to boiling eggs.

[OfDeath]

I think that is the case. It becomes what one subjectively believes to be the optimal outcome. But I've followed the directions on the wrappers before and had the oven set to 180 and it always comes out underdone as in with pink at the bones. It probably depends on the oven being used too. I've lived in the same 2 places since 2016.

[Asker]

I don't mind it being a personal preference if that is what is going on but if that is the case then the problem becomes that I don't know what my preference is because I don't understand what my choices are.

I am not necessarily going to do whatever optimal is anyway though for the exact reason you highlight, I would be quite happy to do something suboptimal as long as it gave me a sufficiently good outcome for less effort, I definitely like hands off.

My approach however is totally different to yours, I tend to go for 'low and slow', I avoid high temperatures because I don't want things to burn in the event that I haven't monitored the cooking closely enough.

That last chicken that I cooked I did it at only 100°C, I was planning to cook it for 2 hours but I think it was in there for 2.5, I don't want to say that it was dry because it wasn't but it could have been more moist so presumably I would have had a better outcome if i reduced the cook time and or if i covered it for some or all of the time.

It's really the potatoes that need the high temp but there is talk of oil smoke points, i. e. the maximum temp the oil can be taken to before it starts to 'burn' and release 'harmful by products'.

The smoke point doesn't seem to be the whole story though because there is also an article which describes the varying 'stablity' of the oils, so although virgin oil has a lower smoke point than vegetable oil it is also more stable so although it smokes at a lower temp it smoke less, or whatever.

Presumably though it would be 'better' if only from a health perspective to stay under the smoke points?

[BoopBoopBeep]

I was a sous chef before the towers came down. Took a really huge pay cut then, which means I was making really good money, and presumably earning it. What is it that they were talking about differently? Cooking isn't like changing an engine out. Actually that'd get you 4 different answers on the best way to do it from 4 different mechanics. There's art involved, so no I wouldn't expect "how to make gravy" to be the same for 4 different chefs. Now if we're talking about the boiling temperature of water, i'd expect them all to say the same thing.

[Asker]

Ok, so there's quite a lot going on with what you have said so I'm going to try and break it all down so that hopefully I can better understand what you are saying to me and what you think is going on here.

Saying that it is an art has a lot of potential meanings or explanations; one of which is what I have already pointed to though perhaps not explictly enough; that we are living in a pre Fosbury flop world of cooking where optimal has not been discovered yet (for this example we will assume that there is no Fosbury flop v.2, it is the best we can ever do). So all the disagreements between the chefs are a result of them explaning how they are doing scissor jumps etc, the cooking skill space has simply not been fully explored.

Another possibility and I think this is what you are suggesting to me is that the methods are objectively the same, i. e. every chef would theoretically tell you the same method if they were all aiming for the same outcome, but they are infact all aiming for different and subjectively 'better' outcomes based on their preferences.

The problem I have with that idea though is that there should be a finite and probably quite small number of different preferred outcomes, or at least broad catagories. As there is when you boil an egg; how thick / set / runny do you want your egg yoke to be?

Perhaps the issue then is that what I was looking for was cooking lessons and what I was being given were just recipes? Perhaps there broad catagories and specific and defined optimal ways of achieving these outcomes, they just aren't being talked about by the chefs.

The meat and potatoes (lols) of what you have said is that you are rejecting the premise that all people at the top of a competitive field use the same technique. That might be true but I can't think of an example myself, perhaps you can give me an example of a sport or other competitive top level activity in which people are using fundamentally different techniques?

[Asker]

Oh another thing I meant to say was that if the cooking is an art doesn't that necessarily mean that the method will be different depending on any number of different variables so if that is the case then there is no point in anyone describing the method they are using because their variables are going to be different to your variables and what should actually be discussed and described is the outcome, what to look for and how to adjust your own method to get the desired outcome. i. e. the problem isn't so much that people can't cook, it's that they can't describe cooking and everyone is just copying this meaningless format of stating cooking times and temps etc when its essentially guaranteed to be wrong.

[BoopBoopBeep]

We're not even all aiming for the same outcome. Roast chicken. Paula Dean is quite happy to drown her food in butter. Pretty much all of it. She WANTS an unctuous, rich, umami heavy dish. Gordon Ramsay will do a minimalist chicken that lets the 5 or so ingredients he uses really shine. Morimoto will deconstruct the dish into multiple components and pairings to highlight the season. I'll roast the chicken in a clay pot with S. E. Asian spices in a fusion presentation.

I like redheads, you like blondes, Joe over there likes brunettes. Same with art. We have different tastes. I wouldn't hand a Warhol in my house if you gave it to me.

If you know absolutely nothing about cooking then it's important to learn different techniques and why things are done and the science behind what is going on, but there's a huge difference between learning how to cook and learning how to follow a recipe... the latter of which I very rarely do.

I already gave an example, just not competitive sports. Painting. Composing music, anything subjective. Dali and Monet don't have the same process. I used to track people down. My partner may have a different way of going about it. We're all trying to get to the same place (person) but there's different ways to do it.

[BoopBoopBeep]

I'd say you're overthinking this. A lot.

[Asker]

It would have been helpful if you had read and understood what I said to you.

[Asker]

Presumably the science behind cooking is not subjective.

[BoopBoopBeep]

I'm sorry. Which part did you feel like I didn't understand?

The science itself is not subjective. WHICH science you employ to get there, IS.

[Asker]

Well, quote We're not even all aiming for the same outcome.

and quote

Another possibility and I think this is what you are suggesting to me is that the methods are objectively the same, i. e. every chef would theoretically tell you the same method if they were all aiming for the same outcome, but they are infact all aiming for different and subjectively 'better' outcomes based on their preferences.

That indicated to me that you hadn't read what i said.

But lets just keep it simple and say that all you are doing is roasting a chicken, literally, you aren't adding other flavours all you are doing is cooking the chicken, mimimising artistic flair and individual preferences.

How many optimal ways of roasting the chicken are there?

Are there different outcomes like there are different outcomes with boiling an egg?

Do you cover it or not?

What temperature and for how long and what if anything does that even mean if my oven and or my chicken or climate or whatever is different to yours anyway?

[BoopBoopBeep]

Yes, there are different outcomes. How much char you want, if any. If you're slow roasting it to make it fork-tender of if you want some "mouthfeel" to it. There is no optimal way. How do YOU want the chicken to feel when it is done?

Temperature will vary depending on altitude, yes

[Asker]

So really all of the billions of recipes and videos out there telling people how to make food are completely pointless, because you aren't being told how to cook your own chicken you are being told how to cook someone else a chicken.

If Gordon Ramsey wants me to make him a sandwich then he will have to come over first, Im not making him one on the off chance that he pops over.

I can't even know what my own preferences are without knowing the full range of options, no one can.

What we should have instead of recipes are educational videos which actually teach you how to cook and why you are doing the different things that you are doing.

[BoopBoopBeep]

I wouldn't call them pointless. You get good at painting by drawing over and over again. You get good at cooking by making a bunch of different dishes and seeing what works for you. The recipe is there so if you absolutely no nothing at all that you see that the chicken calls for 1/4T of salt, not 4 cups, so you don't end up with something inedible.

You don't become a good dancer by reading about how to dance. You have to get on the floor and do it a great many times.

You'll never know your preferences if you cook nothing either. You'll never live long enough to cook the full range of options. Just because you're never be the best QB ever doesn't mean you don't throw a ball. Tons of other QBs are still making a ton of money.

I'm sure there ARE those videos out there. I haven't watch ALL of youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paLPaEKkcMs

There's "The Maillard Reaction: The Science Of The Sizzle"... that's one...10 seconds of searching. Culinary school consists of THAT, not just making recipes over and over again.

[Asker]

I've seen that video before, I found it very helpful.

You say that recipes aren't pointless but you also said this:

there's a huge difference between learning how to cook and learning how to follow a recipe... the latter of which I very rarely do.

If you don't follow recipes, why should i?

Is that how you learnt to cook or did you learn the science, the reasons why you are doing what you are doing?

[BoopBoopBeep]

I don't follow recipes because I've prepared literally thousands if not tens of thousands of dishes and I can read the recipe, taste how the final product would be if i HAD prepared it as such, and make my personal changes in it the first time around. YOU should follow recipes because you don't seem to have that same experience level, the same way people learn to dance by watching a music video and mimicking the person on the screen. Eventually they get good enough and make "their own dance."

I was first taught simple recipes like chicken parmesan when I was 8 and could reach the dials on the range. I learned the science in bits and pieces along the way, as obviously there was no youtube then. Later I did an apprenticeship where a chef taught me the science I hadn't picked up yet, which honestly at that point was very little. Having hundreds of dishes under my belt before ever working in a commercial kitchen allowed me to have a foundation enough to not make the salt mistake mentioned above. Learning the science is why I was making 80k in the late 90s instead of flipping burgers at waffle house. I'm not sure what that would be with inflation now, but I wasn't living poorly.

[Asker]

The key point being that you didn't learn by following recipes.

[BoopBoopBeep]

That's still overly reductive. I didn't learn SOLEY, by recipes, no. But if you don't DO IT then you have no practice, and you will never be good. If you don't know what sort of ratios are appropriate and which are heinous in combination with one another, you have to look at the recipes to learn that, because otherwise how are you going to acquire that knowledge?

I mean... practicing throwing the ball is more helpful than reading about how to throw a ball, no

[Asker]

Again you are missing the point; I am absolutely not saying that practice isn't a requirement what I am saying is that if you do not understand WHY you are doing something doing it won't help you because you dont understand the significance of any of it.

You talk down about 'flipping burgers' but is exactly what following a recipe is, yes you might be able to produce the product but you are not going to be doing is learning anything from it.

I could copy text in a foreign language but I'm not going to learn the language by doing it because I don't understand the significance or meaning of any of those symbols.

[msmissydc]

If your goal is to have a finished end product that you are known for, you of course always try to make it taste the same. But if you cook in private I think cooking can include so much freedom and personal taste, experimentation and different outcomes.

I do think, the better you get at cooking the more control you have about what variation has what impact on the dish. Pro chefs do often try new things and bring variety but not in their finished on menu dishes, these are supposed to be most similar at all time when served to the customer.

[Asker]

I agree with what you have said but the point of the question was not about recipes or flavouring options.

It is only about the technical aspects of cooking the chicken; do you wrap it in foil? What temperature do you cook it at and for how long and why etc?

The premise being that there is a single objectively superior way of cooking as I believe there is for all things.

An example of this is the famous Fosbury flop in high jumping; this technique represents a definitive technical advancement in the field, the technique is so objectively superior to the other methods that even with a much less optimal execution you will still beat optimally executed inferior techniques. If you are not doing the Fosbury flop in high jumping you are doing it wrong.

If we had optimised the technique for cooking chickens all the top chefs should be saying the same thing and they aren't.

So either we don't know or there is a reason for them saying different things which I am not appreciating.

[purplepoppy]

You just sprinkle with a little salt bang it in a hot oven and roast it until it's cooked.

I've experimented with things like brining first or using different temps at beginning and end. I've roasted upside down even vertically, Foil is important for big turkeys but not chicken. End of the day I've found none of these things improves the end product that much.

Too many people want to reinvent the wheel.

[Asker]

Well this the point of the question because I have had a similar set of experiences to you, I haven't done a particularly good job of monitoring the outcomes etc but I have tried a variety of different things and as you say it seems that whatever you do you are going to get a cooked chicken out the other end of it.

It doesn't surprise me that there is a lot of varience at middling levels of skill though, what surprises me is that people who are at the top end of competition don't agree.

[Sevenpointfive]

no. but i can cook for myself in the microwave and it comes out amazing most of the time.

[Nikki1989]

I know how to cook.

[Asker]

You do?

Ok.

What is the optimal way to roast a chicken and why?

[Nikki1989]

I am not going to spend an hour typing out a recipe for you, so...

www.homestolove.com.au/how-to-roast-chicken-9163

[Asker]

Right, so you don't know then.

[BoopBoopBeep]

There IS no optimal way to roast a chicken as agreed upon by all chefs. That's not how cooking works anymore than what's the optimal way to paint a picture exists among all artists.