Cooking For Geeks Part 1

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

by Jeff Potter.

How to Use This Book

This book is designed for use in a couple of different ways.

If you want to "just cook," flip to the recipe index, pick a recipe, and skip straight to that page. The surrounding text will explain some aspects of the science behind the recipe. While the recipes in this book are chosen to complement and provide examples of the science, they're also recipes that are fantastic in and of themselves. Most of the recipes are for single components-say, beef short ribs-without accompanying sides. This allows the various components of a meal to be covered in appropriate science sections, and also keeps each recipe short and easy.

If you're more interested in curling up with a cup of $favoriteBeverage $favoriteBeverage, pick a chapter based on your interests and tuck in.

The first portion of this book covers topics you should think about before turning on the oven: how to approach the kitchen and how to think about taste and smell. The middle portion covers key variables in cooking (time and temperature) and baking (air), as well as some secondary variables. The final two chapters address some of the more creative things you can do in the kitchen, either with "software" (chemicals) or "hardware" (blowtorches!). Recipes and experiments are sprinkled throughout the book, along with interviews of scientists, researchers, chefs, and food bloggers. Here's a taste of what you'll find in this book:

Chapter1.h.e.l.lo, Kitchen!.

WE GEEKS ARE FASCINATED BY HOW THINGS WORK, AND MOST OF US EAT, TOO.

The modern geek is more than just a refined version of the stereotypical movie geek from the '80s. True, there's a contemporary equivalent, who have swapped Star Wars Star Wars posters, pocket protectors, and large gla.s.ses held together by tape for really, posters, pocket protectors, and large gla.s.ses held together by tape for really, really really smart phones, hipster gla.s.ses, and social websites running on virtual machines. The Internet has given the computer geek a new challenge. For most of us techies, the largest obstacle in building something great has changed from a technical to a social one. The question is no longer smart phones, hipster gla.s.ses, and social websites running on virtual machines. The Internet has given the computer geek a new challenge. For most of us techies, the largest obstacle in building something great has changed from a technical to a social one. The question is no longer can you build it can you build it, but will people want it will people want it? We're becoming a different kind of community, one that has to relate to a half a billion Facebook users, Twitterers, and lolcats. (I can has cheezburger? See Simple Cheeseburger Simple Cheeseburger.) But what it means to be a geek today can also be broader. Overly intellectual. Obsessed with details. Going beyond the point where a mainstream user would stop, often to the bemus.e.m.e.nt of those who don't "get it." Physics geeks. Coffee geeks. Almost-anything geeks. A geek is anyone who dwells with some amount of obsession on why something works and how to make that something better. And it's become a badge of honor to be a geek.

At our core, though, all of us geeks still share that same inner curiosity about the hows hows and and whys whys with the pocket-protector crowd of yesteryear. This is where so many cookbooks fail us. Traditional cookbooks are all about the with the pocket-protector crowd of yesteryear. This is where so many cookbooks fail us. Traditional cookbooks are all about the what what, giving steps and quant.i.ties but offering little in the way of engineering-style guidance or ways of helping us think.

[image]

Unfortunately, there's no way (yet) to download a program for kitchen techniques and experience straight into your brain. Don't expect to walk away after finis.h.i.+ng this book (or any other) knowing how to make a perfect four-course meal. That'd be like saying, "Hey, I want to learn how to program, so maybe I should start by writing my own operating system!"

But don't despair. Learning to cook is not so much about rote memorization or experience as it is about curiosity, and that's something us geeks have way more of than your average "random." With the right mindset and a few "h.e.l.lo, World!" examples, you can crack the culinary code and be well on your way to having a good time in the kitchen.

In this first chapter, we'll cover how to approach the kitchen. What does it mean for a geek to hack in the kitchen? What things should a beginner keep in mind? What does success in the kitchen mean? How do you pick a recipe, and then how do you interpret it correctly?

We'll also briefly touch on nutrition. If you're already comfortable in the kitchen, you might want to skim this and the next chapter and dig right in with Chapter3 Chapter3.

NoteAlways read through the entire recipe, top to bottom, before starting. read through the entire recipe, top to bottom, before starting.

Think Like a Hacker

hack: 1. n. Originally, a quick job that produces what is needed, but not well. 2. n. An incredibly good, and perhaps very time-consuming, piece of work that produces exactly what is needed.

--Eric S. Raymond's Jargon File

hacker: a person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular. The term is often misused in a pejorative context, where "cracker" would be the correct term.

--RFC1392, Internet Engineering Task Force

My microwave has no 3 key, but I can enter 2:60.

--As tweeted by Tom Igoe, @tigoe

Cooking has the same types of hard constraints that code, hardware, and most science disciplines do. Processes (chemical or virtual), reactions, allocation of resources (more veggies!), and timing all matter. And while each discipline has standard techniques for solving these constraints, invariably there are other clever alternatives. Hacks don't have to be quick and dirty (that'd be a hack job), or overly involved works of perfection.

Some of the best hacks start out as safe and stable ways of solving unexpected problems, and being able to see those solutions is what it means to think like a hacker. It's rare to see a hack called for in a spec. Imagine a programmer coding a script that needs to count the number of lines in a text file. Standard method? Open, read a line, ++ ++, close. Five minutes until demo? 'wc l "$file"' 'wc l "$file"'. While the hack is easier and faster to write, you should probably understand open/read/close first and know how and when to use them.

If you're new to the kitchen, buckle down and be prepared to learn the system from the inside out before breaking out the blowtorch, methylcellulose, or centrifuge. Every one of the well-respected chefs and instructors interviewed for this book has a thorough grasp of the fundamentals of cooking. Those who use tools like centrifuges and ingredients like methylcellulose use them as ways of extending those cooking fundamentals, not merely for the sake of novelty. To the pros, these newer techniques and ingredients simply expand their repertoires, taking their place alongside olive oil, flour, and other pantry staples.

[image]

Spraying a m.u.f.fin tin on a dishwasher door.

[image]

Mug as plastic bag holder.

[image]

Strainer as splatter guard.

[image]

Roasting peppers in a toaster.

[image]

Metal bowl as double boiler.

What does it mean to take the hacking mindset into the kitchen? Sometimes it's technique. Rolling pizza or pie dough to a uniform thickness by eye can be tricky, but slap a few rubber bands on each end of the rolling pin, and you've got an instant guide. Need to pour spices or coffee grinds into a plastic bag? Drop the plastic bag in a mug or cup and fold the edge of the bag over the edge. "Hacking" can apply to the ingredients as well, as you'll see in Chapter3 Chapter3.

Ways of doing things become obvious once you see them. The challenge in the kitchen is to see where you want to go and then find a path that gets you there. Thinking like a hacker means thinking of an end state and then figuring out how to get there in a time- and s.p.a.ce-optimal (and fewest-dishes-possible) way.

How does one go about discovering hacks and tricks in the kitchen? Here's a thought experiment: imagine you're given a candle, a book of matches, and a box of nails, and asked to mount the candle on a wall. Without burning down the house, how would you do it?

[image]

Functional Fixedness The problem just described is called Duncker's Candle Problem, after Karl Duncker, who studied the cognitive biases that we bring to problems. In this example, things like the paper of the matchbook have a "fixed function" of protecting the matches. We don't normally think of the matchbook cover as a piece of thick cardboard that's been folded over; we just see that as part of the matchbook. Recognizing the object as capable of serving other functions requires mental restructuring, something that the scriptwriters for MacGyver MacGyver excelled at. excelled at.

This mental restructuring is something that most geeks are naturally good at. All those interview puzzles common in the tech industry? You know: how would you start a fire with a can of soda and bar of chocolate?[1] Or, you're given 12 gold coins and a balance scale, but wait! One of the coins is fake, either lighter or heaver than the others, and the balance scale will magically break after exactly three uses. Problems like these almost invariably come down to breaking functional fixedness and overcoming confirmation bias (here, in the sense of being blinded to new uses by knowing previous uses). The obvious solutions to the candle problem-pus.h.i.+ng the nails through the candle or melting the candle so that it sticks to them-will either split the candle or leave it too close to a wall to be safe. The solution, or at least the one Duncker was looking for, involves repurposing the box that had been holding the nails into a shelf. (I'm dreading all the emails I'm going to get with photos of this being done in other ways.) Or, you're given 12 gold coins and a balance scale, but wait! One of the coins is fake, either lighter or heaver than the others, and the balance scale will magically break after exactly three uses. Problems like these almost invariably come down to breaking functional fixedness and overcoming confirmation bias (here, in the sense of being blinded to new uses by knowing previous uses). The obvious solutions to the candle problem-pus.h.i.+ng the nails through the candle or melting the candle so that it sticks to them-will either split the candle or leave it too close to a wall to be safe. The solution, or at least the one Duncker was looking for, involves repurposing the box that had been holding the nails into a shelf. (I'm dreading all the emails I'm going to get with photos of this being done in other ways.) Approaches for overcoming functional fixedness in puzzles, code, or the kitchen are the same. Understand what you actually have and what you're asked to do, break it down into individual steps, and explore different possibilities for each discrete step. Take the quest for the perfect cup of coffee: can you isolate the variables for bean grind, temperature, pressure, etc. and then explore the combinations in a controlled way, varying just one variable at a time? Think about the ingredients you're starting with and the end state you want, as opposed to the straight execution of a recipe. This way, when the execution inevitably veers off course, you can understand the step you are at and how to catch and correct the exception. Of course, be open to other possible outcomes-the way a meal turns out will sometimes be different than what you originally conceived.

Thinking about the end state will also help broaden how you think about cooking more generally. Cooking is not just about food in a pan; it's about health and well-being, community and giving. Why do you want to cook? Watching your waist or your wallet? Health and finances are common considerations. Building community? Potlucks, shared meals, and barbeques can be fun social activities and even spur friendly compet.i.tion. Expressing love? Cooking can be an act of giving, both in the literal sense of sustenance and in the spiritual sense of sharing time and breaking bread together.

Cooking also allows you to try new things-there are plenty of foods that you can't order in a restaurant. Perhaps you want to get closer to your source of food, in which case learning how simple it can be to put together many common dishes will bring you at least one step closer. And then there's getting yet another step closer: I happen to eat meat, but what I buy at the store is so far removed from a living, breathing animal that I find it hard to identify with the life of the critter. (The English language doesn't help. We eat beef beef, but it's a cow. We eat pork pork, but it's a pig. Chickens don't seem to be smart enough to merit a clear separation.) To properly respect an animal's life, to understand where my food comes from and to be mindful of not wasting it, I feel that at some point I should have to butcher an animal myself. (You could try lobster, but I've yet to get teary-eyed over one.) For me, cooking is also as much about escaping from work as it is about satisfying hunger, not to mention having fun trying new things with friends and knowing that what I'm putting in my body is healthy.

Regardless of your reason for wanting to cook, realize that there's more to cooking than just following a recipe. When looking at the end goal, think beyond the cooking stage. If your reason for cooking is to express affection, you should consider the sensations that your food brings your guests and the perceptions and reactions they have to it as much as the cooking itself. On the other side, if you're cooking primarily for health or financial reasons, the quality and price of ingredients will be much more important.

If your goals are social, the end state isn't the food on the plate; it's the perceptions that are brought about by the experience of eating. If you're making a meal for a romantic interest, give thought not just to the work done in cooking, but also the experience at the table. While you can't control your guest's perceptions, you do have control over the inputs, cooking, and sensations, all of which inform and shape those perceptions. Even something as simple as preheating your plates so that hot food remains hot can make an impact. (Cold sauteed fish and vegetables? Yuck.) For some, the extra effort of setting the table with nice flatware or festive plates can be a powerful signal of attention and affection.

[image]

The solution to Duncker's Candle Problem, at least according to Duncker, is to use the box holding the nails as a makes.h.i.+ft shelf to hold the candle.

[image]

Stages and reasons for cooking.

We'll cover the first column of the stages and reasons for cooking diagram, Inputs Inputs, in Chapter3 Chapter3 and give and give Cooking Cooking its due respect in its due respect in Chapter4 Chapter4 and and Chapter5 Chapter5. Some elements from the final two columns, Sensations Sensations and and Perceptions Perceptions, are covered indirectly in Chapter6 Chapter6 and and Chapter7 Chapter7, since playing with textures and presentations is a great way to evoke memories. But the essence of sensations and perceptions is much more in the personal domain. If your reasons for cooking include being social, giving, and romantic, consider how to draw upon these aspects as you try things from this book.

Finally, for those who say presentation doesn't matter, think about dining-hall food, and then check out Fancy Fast Food (http://www.fancyfastfood.com). How we approach food, from a food psychology and consumer behavior perspective, impacts our experience much more than we are typically willing to admit, even when confronted with hard data. See the interview with Brian Wansink on the next page for a story about his graduate students and Chex Mix to get a sense of just how far this denial goes!

[image]

Brian Wansink on Cooking Styles[image]PHOTO USED BY PERMISSION OF BRIAN WANSINKBrian Wansink is a professor at Cornell University, where he studies the way we interact with food. His book, Mindless Eating Mindless Eating (Bantam), examines how we make our choices about how much and what kinds of foods we eat. (Bantam), examines how we make our choices about how much and what kinds of foods we eat.Tell me a bit about the styles of cooking that you have found.We find that the nutritional gatekeeper, what we call the person who purchases and prepares the food in their home, controls about 72% of all the food their family eats. They do it either positively or negatively: positively if they serve fruit bowls, negatively if they serve candy dishes.We did a study of 1,004 North Americans. These were good cooks good cooks, people considered by themselves and by at least one of their family members to be a far above average cook. We asked probably about 120 questions of all different aspects. We found that about 80% to 85% could be categorized in one of five different ways.The giving cooks giving cooks are the people who see the food they make as giving love. They tend to be great bakers, very traditional in the recipes they make. There's not a lot of changing or tweaking of the recipes. They're the ones who all the families go to on Thanksgiving or Christmas. are the people who see the food they make as giving love. They tend to be great bakers, very traditional in the recipes they make. There's not a lot of changing or tweaking of the recipes. They're the ones who all the families go to on Thanksgiving or Christmas.The second one of these good cooks is the healthy cook healthy cook. This shouldn't be that surprising, but these are the people who will sacrifice taste to make something healthy. They eat lots of fish and tend to be most likely an exerciser of all these groups. They're more likely than the others to have a garden as well.The third group is the methodical cook methodical cook. The methodical cook can pretty much make anything, but she or he has to have that cookbook right in front of them the entire time. After they finish making something, it's going to look exactly like it looks in the cookbook. Their kitchen is going to look pretty much like Iwo Jima. They have some of the skills, but they don't have the familiarity, the "second nature" of cooking that would make them facile in the kitchen.The fourth group is an innovative cook innovative cook. They cook by second nature. They seldom use cookbooks and if they do they just look at the picture and say, "Yeah, I can do that!" These people are pretty creative in a lot of other areas of their life, too. Cooking for them is almost like painting might be for an artist or messing around with music might be for a musician. It's not just a hobby; it's sort of an expressive release. Innovative cooks are interesting, because very little of their ego is involved in the food they make. If something goes wrong, they're not going to be shattered and cry in the corner for the rest of the day. They're just going to be like, "Eh, tried it and it didn't work, no big deal."The fifth group of good cooks are also very fun. These are compet.i.tive cooks compet.i.tive cooks. They cook to impress other people. You can kind of consider them to be the Iron Chefs of the neighborhood. They'll try new things. They'll try weird things, but not because they like new weird things; they want you to leave that night going, "That guy is incredible! Man, that was great!"If you have two people who are in a relations.h.i.+p, I have to imagine there are combinations of style that lead to some amount of conflict, like a giving cook baking for someone trying to get fit. Do you have any advice for couples or families where the nutritional gatekeeper is doing something that's antagonistic without knowing it?In most people's lives, about five meals per week can cause conflict. First, breakfasts are eaten at staggered times and since they're kind of low-prep things, the person can do whatever they want to or skip it. Lunches are often eaten offsite and you can pack your own. The action is usually at dinner, but even with dinners, there could be a night or two where people might eat somewhere else, or a night or two when one of them is away. It leaves a very small handful of meals where there is potential conflict. That can be further reduced by having one night when the nondominant cook ends up doing the cooking for everyone else. So, for instance, on Mondays I usually cook for my family to give my wife a break.What are the easiest habits that a geek can change to help them eat healthier?This depends on what their issues are. One would be simply to use a smaller plate. A smaller plate leads you to eat 22% less than a larger plate. That only works with fresh food, because if all you're doing is heating up frozen food, you're going to eat all you can heat. Another one would be to serve off the counter. What we find is a person ends up being about two-sevenths as likely to go back for seconds or thirds or fourths if a dish is simply six or more feet away.How much of those biases and those cues can we counteract by knowing about them? Do they tend to go away once we're aware of them?I took 60 graduate students and for 90 minutes told them that if I give them a big serving bowl of Chex Mix they will take and eat a lot more than if I give them a slightly smaller bowl. I demonstrated and showed videos. They broke into groups to figure out how they could let this not happen to them. Then I invited them to a big Super Bowl party. We had huge bowls of Chex Mix in one room and slightly smaller bowls of Chex Mix in the other. Those in the room with the big bowls ate about 200 more calories over the course of the night. When they were leaving, I asked "You ate about 50% more than the group in the other room. Do you think the size of the bowl had anything to do with it?" They said no. They would make random stuff up like, "I didn't have breakfast last Tuesday!" Mindful eating might work for some people. For those of us who have 10 things going on, I don't know how we could be much more mindful 21 times a week just for meals, let alone snacks.We've got wives, we've got kids screaming, we've got lists that we're making in our heads in the middle of dinner, we have four phone calls we need to make when we finish. We're way too busy to do mindful eating, unless you live in a castle by yourself. So for most of us, the solution isn't information; the solution is simply to change our environment so that it works for us. We find that if you give people short wide gla.s.ses rather than tall skinny gla.s.ses with the same volume, people end up pouring about 32% more into them. Even bartenders pouring a shot will pour more in a short wide gla.s.s than a tall skinny gla.s.s. They never look at the width of the gla.s.s; they just look at the height. You could say, "I must not over pour every time I have a short wide gla.s.s." That's ridiculous. We're not going to do that. A better solution is just to get rid of all of your short wide gla.s.ses. Now that I'm aware that that could happen it's not going to happen; of course it's going to happen. Just change that cue.Change the environment. That sounds like it's the secret.The first line of Mindless Eating Mindless Eating says the best diet is the diet you don't know you're on. I actually started the last chapter by saying it's easier to change your environment than to change your mind. says the best diet is the diet you don't know you're on. I actually started the last chapter by saying it's easier to change your environment than to change your mind.[image]

A Few Words on Nutrition Most of this book deals with cooking for pleasure and enjoyment, but at the end of the day, it does does come down to making sure your body has the nutrients it needs to keep you going and to keep you healthy. Okay, okay; I know... You probably don't want yet another rant on how you should be eating more veggies. I promise to keep it short. come down to making sure your body has the nutrients it needs to keep you going and to keep you healthy. Okay, okay; I know... You probably don't want yet another rant on how you should be eating more veggies. I promise to keep it short.

While our bodies are amazingly adaptive systems, able to tolerate just about anything in the short term, the general consensus is that you'll be happier, healthier, and live longer if you eat the right things. What's "right" isn't the same for everyone, since genetics, metabolisms, and activity levels differ so much. Nor is it easy to prescribe an exact diet, a "perfect" diet, because the human body seems to adapt so well. Just talk to anyone who's tried to lose weight. The human body can adapt to a wide range of eating patterns. After all, we have evolved to survive under less-than-ideal situations. There's even a New York Times New York Times article about one guy who lives primarily on candy, and it seems to work for him! article about one guy who lives primarily on candy, and it seems to work for him!

Still, there are two general rules for nutrition that you should keep in mind: eat the right amount and eat healthy foods. Portion control is a big issue for many Americans, especially as restaurant meals tend to be way larger than they need to be. And it's easy to plop down on the couch in front of the TV and eat away. You should eat until you're just full, not until you're stuffed or your plate is empty. And while there's no perfect list of foods, you should eat "whole" foods-grains, vegetables, fish, and moderate amounts of meats-and restrict the amount of processed foods, especially those high in sugar, fats, and salt. Personally, I believe eating foods that would have been recognized a century ago is a good rule of thumb.

We eat for two physiological reasons: to provide our bodies with food to break down into energy (via catabolism catabolism), and to provide our cells with the necessary building blocks to synthesize the chemicals that cells need to function (called anabolism anabolism). At the simplest level, there are macronutrients macronutrients (proteins, fats, and carbs) and (proteins, fats, and carbs) and micronutrients micronutrients (trace elements, vitamins). Both provide the chemical compounds that your body needs for anabolism, but it's the macronutrients that provide the energy necessary to read, grocery shop, and cook. As long as you're ingesting enough (but not too much) of each type of nutrient, your body will be good to go. If you're regularly cooking balanced meals for yourself, you probably don't need to worry too much about micronutrients. (trace elements, vitamins). Both provide the chemical compounds that your body needs for anabolism, but it's the macronutrients that provide the energy necessary to read, grocery shop, and cook. As long as you're ingesting enough (but not too much) of each type of nutrient, your body will be good to go. If you're regularly cooking balanced meals for yourself, you probably don't need to worry too much about micronutrients.

When it comes to measuring the amount of energy in food, the standard unit of measurement used in the United States is the food calorie food calorie, equal to 1,000 gram calories gram calories (the amount of energy needed to heat 1 gram of water by 1C). In nutrition, "food calorie" is sometimes capitalized to "Calorie" to distinguish it from a gram calorie and is abbreviated as kcal or C. (Other parts of the world use joules and kilojoules.) How many calories your body needs depends upon both your body's base caloric requirements and your activity level. If you're a desk jockey, you're probably not burning as many calories as a student running back and forth between cla.s.ses and the lab. If you routinely eat more calories than your body burns, your body will convert the excess calories into fat, even if the source of those calories wasn't fat. (Sugary fast-food items labeled "low fat" are (the amount of energy needed to heat 1 gram of water by 1C). In nutrition, "food calorie" is sometimes capitalized to "Calorie" to distinguish it from a gram calorie and is abbreviated as kcal or C. (Other parts of the world use joules and kilojoules.) How many calories your body needs depends upon both your body's base caloric requirements and your activity level. If you're a desk jockey, you're probably not burning as many calories as a student running back and forth between cla.s.ses and the lab. If you routinely eat more calories than your body burns, your body will convert the excess calories into fat, even if the source of those calories wasn't fat. (Sugary fast-food items labeled "low fat" are not not "low fattening.") Eat too few calories, and your body will either lose weight or slow down your metabolism; that is, slow down the rate of chemical reactions related to anabolism and catabolism, leaving you with less energy. Eat far too few calories for an extended period of time and your body will suffer from malnutrition. "low fattening.") Eat too few calories, and your body will either lose weight or slow down your metabolism; that is, slow down the rate of chemical reactions related to anabolism and catabolism, leaving you with less energy. Eat far too few calories for an extended period of time and your body will suffer from malnutrition.

While a calorie is a calorie in the sense of energy, the food you ingest isn't just about energy. Your body needs various types of nutrients for specific purposes. Protein, for example, provides essential amino acids necessary for building and repairing muscle. If you ate only carbs, you wouldn't last long! Unless you have particular dietary needs-say, for athletic training or pregnancy-you're probably getting sufficient quant.i.ties of proteins and fats.

Not all fats are created equal, nor are all carbs the same. As a general rule, you want your fats to be liquid at room temperature (good: olive oil, canola oil; bad: lard, shortening), and you want your carbs to not be white (that is, cut down on white rice, white flour, and sugar). As with so many things in food, it's the dosage that matters. A little bit of salt won't hurt you; too much will kill you. Avoid processed foods as much as possible. Most processed foods are engineered for consistency and shelf stability, which usually results in trade-offs of nutritional benefit. Even white flour has its drawbacks: the wheat germ and bran are removed (the oils located in the germ and bran go rancid, so removing them extends shelf life), but the germ and bran are beneficial to our health. Still, if your body needs calories, processed food is better than no food, and the occasional brownie isn't going to hurt.

If all of this still leaves you wondering what to cook for dinner, consider what Michael Pollan wrote in the New York Times New York Times ("Out of the Kitchen, Onto the Couch," August 2, 2009): ("Out of the Kitchen, Onto the Couch," August 2, 2009): I asked [food-marketing researcher Harry Balzer] how, in an ideal world, Americans might begin to undo the damage that the modern diet of industrial prepared food has done to our health."Easy. You want Americans to eat less? I have the diet for you. It's short and it's simple. Here's my diet plan: Cook it yourself. That's it. Eat anything you want-just as long as you're willing to cook it yourself."

Tips for Newbies Knowing how to overcome functional fixedness problems such as Duncker's Candle Problem requires understanding how to read a recipe and break it down into the individual steps, so that you can control and vary the discrete stages. As with any protocol, understanding the structure is critical; you have to understand a system before you can hack it. Here are a few tips for getting yourself in the right state of mind to learn the kitchen equivalents of programming's "open, read, close": - Have fun! Learning is about curiosity, not work.

- Know your type. Like to grill? Then grill. Rather bake? Then bake.

- Read the whole recipe before starting, and make sure you understand each step.

- Take time to taste things, both to adjust seasoning and to learn how the taste changes during cooking.

- Don't be afraid to burn dinner!

Have fun!

I was talking with a friend of mine, a fellow geek who was just starting to learn to cook, when he said: I was never that curious about cooking, so I thought that buying The Joy of Cooking The Joy of Cooking and going through it would be the right approach. That's probably like sitting down with Donald Knuth's and going through it would be the right approach. That's probably like sitting down with Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming The Art of Computer Programming in order to learn to program, when really all you should be doing at first is trying to make something you like. in order to learn to program, when really all you should be doing at first is trying to make something you like.

He's right: make something you like, give yourself enough time to enjoy the process, and have fun doing it. Slaving through the Joy Joy or Knuth will work, but it's not the way most people learn to cook or write code. It'd be like picking up a dictionary to learn how to write. The culinary equivalent of or Knuth will work, but it's not the way most people learn to cook or write code. It'd be like picking up a dictionary to learn how to write. The culinary equivalent of The Oxford English Dictionary The Oxford English Dictionary or or The Art of Computer Programming The Art of Computer Programming is Harold McGee's is Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking On Food and Cooking (Scribner). It's a fantastic reference and a substantial contribution to our understanding of the everyday processes in food, and you should make s.p.a.ce for a copy on your bookshelf. But it is not a book for learning how to cook. (Scribner). It's a fantastic reference and a substantial contribution to our understanding of the everyday processes in food, and you should make s.p.a.ce for a copy on your bookshelf. But it is not a book for learning how to cook.

If there's one secret about learning how to cook, it's this: have fun in the kitchen. Go experiment. Play. Take that hacker curiosity that you use in front of the keyboard and bring it with you into the kitchen, to the grocery store, and on your next meal out. Cook to please yourself. Doing someone else's work is nowhere near as much fun as working on your own projects, and it's no different in the kitchen: pick something you you want to learn how to cook and try making it. want to learn how to cook and try making it.

Caught between two different ways of cooking something? Do an A/B test: make it one way, then a second way, and see which works better.

Don't cook a new dish for an important guest. If you're nervous about how it'll turn out, cook for just yourself, so you don't have to worry about trying to impress someone (especially a potential romantic interest!). It's entirely okay to screw up and toss it in the trash; it's no different than a programmer refactoring code. Most people's first drafts of software, food, or books need refinement before they're ready to s.h.i.+p. Sure, it'll hurt a little on the wallet, but it's not wasted: you did did learn something, yes? Success! learn something, yes? Success!

Finally, don't expect your cooking to taste exactly like restaurant or packaged foods. For one, a lot of commercial cooking is designed to appeal to the palette via a salty, fatty, or sugary a.s.sault on the senses. Tasty? Yes. Healthy? Not exactly. Learning to cook is a great way to control what you eat and, by extension, your health.

Know your type There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide people into two kinds, and those who don't. Or is it 10 types: those who know binary, and those who don't? All joking aside, "binning" yourself into the right category will make the learning process a whole heck of a lot easier. And in case you're the irreverent type who insists you don't fit into any standard category, work with me here. Consider the following: vi vi or or emacs emacs? Windows or Mac? PHP or Python? Sure, you might not have strong preferences, but it's still clear that divisions exist.

The culinary world has its divisions, too. The biggest one in the professional world is that of cooks cooks versus versus bakers bakers. Cooks have a reputation for an intuitive, "toss it into the pot" approach, adding a pinch of this or a dash of that to "course-correct" along the way. Bakers are stereo-typically described as precise, exact in their measurements, and methodically organized. Even culinary schools such as Le Cordon Bleu Le Cordon Bleu split their programs into cooking ("cuisine") and baking ("patisserie"). But this is probably due to the differences in technique and execution. Cooking is split into two stages: prep work and then an on-demand, line-cook portion. Pastry and baking is almost always done production-style, completed in advance of when the order comes in. split their programs into cooking ("cuisine") and baking ("patisserie"). But this is probably due to the differences in technique and execution. Cooking is split into two stages: prep work and then an on-demand, line-cook portion. Pastry and baking is almost always done production-style, completed in advance of when the order comes in.

This isn't to say that professional cooks hate baking, or that bakers don't enjoy cooking. But if you find yourself dipping your finger into the cake batter and being tempted to add more of this or that, pay attention to what it means. If you're the type who really likes to have an exact set of instructions to follow, taking the guesswork out of the process, learn to relax and develop your kitchen instincts when whipping up a dinner. Give yourself permission to dislike some parts of cooking. For most of us, it's a hobby, not a profession, so it's okay to skip the culinary equivalent of doc.u.menting your code.

What Type of Cook Are You?When I prepare a meal, I typically: 1. Rely on cla.s.sic dishes my family has always enjoyed 2. Subst.i.tute more healthful ingredients 3. Follow a recipe step-by-step 4. Rarely use recipes and like to experiment 5. Go all out and try to impress my guests Some of my favorite ingredients are: 1. Lots of bread, starches, and red meat 2. Fish and vegetables 3. Beef and chicken 4. Vegetables, spices, and unusual ingredients 5. A trendy ingredient I saw on the Food Network In my free time I like to: 1. Visit with friends and family 2. Exercise or take a fitness cla.s.s 3. Organize the house 4. Take part in creative or artistic pursuits 5. Be spontaneous and seek adventure My favorite things to cook are: 1. Home-baked goodies 2. Foods with fresh ingredients and herbs 3. Ca.s.seroles 4. Ethnic foods and wok dishes 5. Anything that lets me fire up the grill Other people describe me as: 1. Really friendly 2. Health-conscious 3. Diligent and methodical 4. Curious 5. Intense [image]There may be overlap in the answers you give, but is there one letter that you picked most often? Here's what your answers say about your cooking style: 1. Giving: Friendly, well-liked, and enthusiastic, giving cooks seldom experiment, they love baking, and like to serve tried-and-true family favorites, although that sometimes means serving less healthful foods. Friendly, well-liked, and enthusiastic, giving cooks seldom experiment, they love baking, and like to serve tried-and-true family favorites, although that sometimes means serving less healthful foods.

2. Healthy: Optimistic, book-loving, nature enthusiasts, healthy cooks experiment with fish, fresh produce, and herbs. Health comes first, even if it means sometimes sacrificing taste. Optimistic, book-loving, nature enthusiasts, healthy cooks experiment with fish, fresh produce, and herbs. Health comes first, even if it means sometimes sacrificing taste.

3. Methodical: Talented cooks who rely heavily on recipes. The methodical cook has refined tastes and manners. Their creations always look exactly like the picture in the cookbook. Talented cooks who rely heavily on recipes. The methodical cook has refined tastes and manners. Their creations always look exactly like the picture in the cookbook.

4. Innovative: Creative and trend-setting, innovative cooks seldom use recipes and like to experiment with ingredients, cuisine styles, and cooking methods. Creative and trend-setting, innovative cooks seldom use recipes and like to experiment with ingredients, cuisine styles, and cooking methods.

5. Compet.i.tive: The "Iron Chef" of the neighborhood, compet.i.tive cooks have dominant personalities and are intense perfectionists who love to impress their guests. The "Iron Chef" of the neighborhood, compet.i.tive cooks have dominant personalities and are intense perfectionists who love to impress their guests.Used by permission of Brian Wansink, author of Mindless Eating Mindless Eating Avoid PEBKAC-type errors: RTFR!

Avoid Problem Exists Between Knife And Chairtype errors by Reading The F'ing Recipe! Recipes are are code, although they require some interpretation, so read the recipe, top to bottom, before starting. One interviewee, Lydia Wals.h.i.+n, explains: code, although they require some interpretation, so read the recipe, top to bottom, before starting. One interviewee, Lydia Wals.h.i.+n, explains: 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, read the recipe first, and 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 you find out you're making a stew, because it's a recipe for disaster.

Every. Word. Matters. I've watched geeks with PhDs in chemistry skip right over steps that say "turn off heat" in the middle of a recipe that involves melting chocolate in simmering port. Turn off heat? But melting things requires heat! In fact, the residual heat from the port will melt the chocolate, and this way you don't accidentally burn it.

It's okay to go "off recipe." In fact, it's a great way to learn; just do it intentionally. Maybe you don't have all the ingredients and want to subst.i.tute something else. Perhaps the recipe is poorly written or has errors. Or, as in programming, you can see there's more than one way to do it and you want to do it differently. A recipe isn't a strict protocol, but do understand the suggested protocol before deviating.

There's a lot of room for personal preference in cooking. Just because a recipe for hot chocolate might say " cup heavy cream, 1 cup milk," that doesn't mean you must must use those quant.i.ties. As another interviewee put it, "Please, let's get off the recipes!" I couldn't agree more. If you're following a recipe and think it needs more or less of something, or could benefit from an extra spice, go for it. I usually stick to the recipe the first time I make something, but after that, all bets are off. I'll pull out a pencil, make notes, change quant.i.ties, drop and add ingredients. I encourage you to do that to this book! After making something, take a pencil and make notes as to what you'd do differently next time. That way, when you next pick up the book, you'll remember how to tweak the recipe to your taste. (And if there are any errors in the text, you won't repeat them.) use those quant.i.ties. As another interviewee put it, "Please, let's get off the recipes!" I couldn't agree more. If you're following a recipe and think it needs more or less of something, or could benefit from an extra spice, go for it. I usually stick to the recipe the first time I make something, but after that, all bets are off. I'll pull out a pencil, make notes, change quant.i.ties, drop and add ingredients. I encourage you to do that to this book! After making something, take a pencil and make notes as to what you'd do differently next time. That way, when you next pick up the book, you'll remember how to tweak the recipe to your taste. (And if there are any errors in the text, you won't repeat them.) If a brownie recipe calls for walnuts, but you really like almonds, yes, it'll still work! Out of vanilla extract? Those chocolate chip cookies will be fine. Your timer says the chicken has been in for the prescribed time, but it's still got that gross, raw chicken look? Pop it back in the oven. (Better yet, use a probe thermometer, as explained in Thermometers and timers Thermometers and timers in in Chapter2 Chapter2.) In most modern cookbooks, recipes are laid out in two sections: ingredients and methods. The ingredients section lists the quant.i.ties and prep steps for each of the ingredients, and the methods section describes how to combine them. Recipes in this book are laid out in a more conversational format that walks you through the recipes with ingredients listed as they come up. Pay attention to the notes, as they show where you can do things differently.

To get started, consider the recipe for hot chocolate on the following page.

The recipes in this book give both weight in grams and standard U.S. volume-based quant.i.ties. Sometimes, the weights are rounded up or down a bit. 1 cup milk, for example, actually weighs 256 grams (1 cup = 237 ml). We'll cover when to use weight and when to use volume in Chapter2 Chapter2, but be aware that the conversions given between the two are sometimes rounded for convenience's sake.