it's just a contradiction because it's so cheffy and comes from the same camp as people who are all about free range cage free organic bullshit food, but then rave over food being infused with chemicals to make it look pretty it's the same thing cheap pre-cooked foods have been getting shit on for years about literally "we use chemicals that are safe for human consumption or artificial process to physically alter, fortify, and coax flavor out of food, creating an unnatural result not possible through conventional means"
who am I talking about, ronald mcdonald or wylie dufresne?
>>7317767 I'd say the worst cooking fad was postwar convenience foods: frozen dinners, cake mixes, Hamburger Helper, casseroles made out of condensed cream of mushroom soup, pasta sauces in jars, bottled salad dressings, Spam, canned pasta/chili, frozen pizza, taco kits and the like.
That's the worst cooking fad I can think of. Molecular gastronomy hardly is a blip on the radar compared to that shit.
>>7317843 >infused with chemicals to make it look pretty >it's the same thing cheap pre-cooked foods have been getting shit on for years about Why don't you learn something about... anything... before you start talking?
>>7317823 Nothing, but people bitch endlessly about it anyway. I suspect it's the same people who complain about modern art. They can't accept that something can be *conceptually* interesting and assume that if they don't immediately understand something someone must be trying to trick them.
>>7317904 When you have restaurants pandering exclusively to these idiots, it's officially crossed the line from health scare to cooking trend
>>7317912 >Everything I don't like is Reddit kekm8. This shitpost is as /ck/ as you can get without including Jack, carbonara, or nationality baiting
>>7317874 That shit it totally a fad. No one cooked like that until after the war. And no one serious about cooking does. It's the top 40 radio of cooking; food for people who don't give a shit about food but have to cook anyways. But like all fads it will pass. It's already starting to look like dated foodgore. In another 50 years no one except the poorest and least educated will be eating like that.
But I'd expect 50 years from now element of molecular gastronomy will still be a part of fine dining, and some will have filtered down to home cooking. No one had a microwave oven 65 years ago. There's no reason to think circulators and vacuum sealers won't be commonplace 50 years from now. Or liquid nitrogen. Agar agar might be as common as cornstarch.
I'd be hard pressed to write off all of molecular gastronomy as a fad as easily as I can most of the foodgore in an average supermarket right now.
>>7318018 >No one cooked like that until after the war >Everything new is a fad
Your top 40 analogy is inapposite as well. There will always be a top 40--it's the songs that change. There will always be cheap microwave/boxed/canned shit. It just changes slightly to accommodate things like gluten-free, calorie-conscious, etc.
>>7317950 I'd say it was postwar ideas of modernity making cooking "from scratch" seem old fashioned, then the freezer and the microwave made cooking unnecessary. This is hopefully going to die out a bit now that the rise of the celebrity chef has made cooking seem cool.
Another fad I see going into decline has hung on for almost a century in America: the idea that breakfast ought to be a bowl of sweetened grain flakes in cold milk. I'd be thrilled to see that shit go out of fashion in my lifetime.
>>7318062 >There will always be a top 40 Nope. The Top 40 was a calculation based on record sales of a single and radio airplay of that single, originally compiled by Billboard magazine. Already sounding antique, isn't it? As a radio format it's a creation of the 1960's. The only reason the concept of Top 40 remains in our culture is because a syndicated program named after it. There is no reason to think the term Top 40 will have any meaning in popular culture fifty years from now.
By the same token there were no microwave ovens or microwave heat and eat meals until the 60's, and they really didn't become a huge thing until the 70's. Whose to say they won't seem as antique as the radio being a piece of furniture in the living room 50 years from now?
>>7317767 But anon, a lot of expensive wasteful work goes into acquiring the very flavorful essences and crafting them out into a multitude of foam or gelatin base artistic creations. It allows us to be creative in a way that is both appealing to the eyes and shows that we really do important things with out lives as successful people, and that we only settle for the best.
Molecular gastronomy is extracting the flavors you want from something, then using various bullshit items and techniques like spray bottles, liquid nitrogen, gelatin/agar/whatever, power tools, etc. to make a body to house your extracted flavors that can look like whatever you want it to, given the limitations of edible objects.
>>7318062 shitty microwaveable food is getting comparatively less shitty though. I've tried a couple different kinds of those microwave in the pouch/tray things that were almost edible, which is far more than I can say about all the weird meat products that come in jars that sit next to the spam.
>>7320511 What about it stokes your autism? It's just a flashy bit of theatrics that ends an opulent meal that takes place over 20-some courses. Why not end with something flashy and out of the ordinary?
>>7319675 Look into potatoes and their traditional cooking process. We don't eat them raw for a reason.
Another reason for cooking is that it destroys cell walls, which increases flavor and makes nutrients more bio-available. However, cooking produces artificial compounds that are linked to increased cancer risk. A futuristic method of food preparation that avoids cooking would be ideal from a nutritional standpoint.
>>7322284 >you've singlehandedly told the world that you don't like things because you don't know how to approach them i think i just said that little piles of food thrown across a table would be annoying to eat
>I NEED ALL MY FOOD IN A CONVENIENTLY PACKED VOLUMETRIC 3''X3''X3'' SPATIAL CUBE SO THAT IT CAN BE CONSUMED IN THE LEAST AMOUNT OF TIME T WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO V THE VOLUME DIVIDED BY Y GAMMA THE RATE OF CONSUMPTION >I'M ALSO REALLY FUCKING FAT
>>7322342 but it's like ordering a meal and having it split on two plates with half of your food being on the other side of the table. just seems like it's for people to take pictures of it and share on social media, it's not done to make it taste better or anything
>>7322297 I agree with you. While it's pretty, it would be a hassle. I'm not trying to spend time rolling berries around in random dust, and then redipping my now germ infested spoon in every mystery sauce that is also now filled with everyone else's germs. If I wanted to fill my mouth with powder and liquid I'd just snort some coke and wait for that nasal drip
>The more I contemplated food phobias, the more I became convinced that people who habitually avoid certifiably delicious foods are at least as troubled as people who avoid sex, or take no pleasure from it, except that the latter will probably seek psychiatric help, while food phobics rationalize their problem in the name of genetic inheritance, allergy, vegetarianism, matters of taste, nutrition, food safety, obesity, or a sensitive nature.
>>7322470 >posts a picture of a fatass who gobbled down anything that looked edible The worst posters on this board are the picky eater memers like you who are 400 pounds IRL from eating everything with no regard to health or nutrition, and the sugar addicts who try and justify being addicted to a literal drug. Ironically, there's a lot of crossover between the two groups. Makes you think, huh?
>>7322525 We're not talking about malnourishment here, we're talking about overweight fatasses like you gobbling down everything because you're literally addicted to food. Most people you call "picky eaters" are actually pretty /fit/ individuals who are disgusted by the overly sweet and fatty garbage which you consume on a daily basis.
>>7322600 >go to a board focused on healthy eating and nutrition >get called out on being an astronomic fatass who shovels anything down his gullet with no standards or sense of nutritional value or health >W-WHY AM I BEING ATTACKED Maybe Tumblr is more up to speed for you
More and more I get the impression that /fit/ posters were all obese as kids, and now know nothing other than the fast/junk food they grew up on and the boneless, skinless chicken breast their holy sticky tells them to eat for every meal. In both cases you are most likely going to be an extremely picky eater.
What those people don't understand is that the rest of the world pretty much eats what they want - in moderation - and are healthy.
>we're not talking about malnourishment here, we're talking about overweight fatasses like you gobbling down everything because you're literally addicted to food
You should probably look up what "malnourished" means.
>>7322625 >getting /fit/ is bad because it's literally fat erasure! >drugs, poison and murder are okay in moderation, just like sugar! >sugar is healthy! >shoving gastronomic cookies down your throat is healthy because it's organic! >my made-up definition for malnourished is real because there's so much fat suffocating my brain that I can't think properly anymore The mental gymnastics you fatasses go through
>>7322647 False dichotomy. If one is in a general pattern of physical activity and generally healthy eating indulgences here and there in the form of going out to eat at particularly decadent restaurants aren't really going to be an issue.
>>7322667 >fatasses actually tell themselves this to feel better Malnourished = skeleton mode, one small step above being fat because they at least try to not be disgusting Obese, morbidly obese, fat, fatass, eternal virgin = what you and most of this thread are, the lowest of the low And then there's /fit/, which comes in many different shapes in sizes, but is objectively the best way to be. You'll live the longest, get laid, and enjoy life more than any pretentious fatass who shoves his face full of molecular gastronime.
>>7322674 No amount of physical activity will undo the damage going on inside of your body from ingesting actual poison. You can't exercise diabetes away.
>>7322690 But it you eat a sensible diet andwork out on a regular basis an indulgence here and there is not going to hurt you. The only people who get rekt by occasional indulgences are those who did not take care of themselves and got to gout or beetus level. A healthy, fit person can have dessert after a particularly rich meal every once in a while and it won't do them any harm.
>>7322690 >/fit/ objectively the best way to be steroids, thinking being overweight is okay as long as it's muscle and not fat, body dysmorphia because you don't look like the guy in a supplement ad, still eating more than you need to because EAT BIG GET BIG, not caring about long-term health, all of this is common on /fit/
Molecular Gastronomy is a joke the cooking world played on itself.
The term was coined when some people tried to hold conference on the science of food and cooking, but no one would take them seriously. So they changed the name to "Molecular Gastronomy" just to seem more sciency. It was never supposed to be this naval gazing nonsense.
Thread replies: 109 Thread images: 9
Thread DB ID: 477806
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.