Is molecular gastronomy the worst cooking fad that has ever existed?

you ever tried it

I think it has its time & place if you're looking for a novel eating experience. I think the concept itself it isn't terrible, but as a fad I might agree.

you mean Poorfag Thread? xd

>>7317767
>not savory Jell-O aspic "salad"

No.

Restrictive/picky eater diets are.

>>7317815
You're a faggot.

No? What is bad about molecular gastronomy?

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
What am I looking at here?

>>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.

File: caviar-1-761704.jpg (38KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x300px

>>7317848
albino caviar

>>7317819

Picky eater detected.

>>7317856
is that snail eggs?

>>7317862
It's bull semen harvested from your ass.

>>7317853
That's not a fad you mong

>>7317843
>cage free
What the fuck is wrong with this?

>>7317869
you're a cunt

>>7317884
then stop asking retarded stuff

the "gluten is bad for everyone" fad is the worst.

molecular gastronomy is only practiced by a few rich hipsters. and it's mostly harmless.

>>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?

>>7317899

gluten is bad for everyone isn't really a cooking fad more of a health scare

>>7317815

This is the obvious answer.

There's nothing wrong with people trying new things with food, but getting rid of gluten, or going raw, vegan, or paleo is fucking retarded, and goes in the wrong direction.

>>7317869
>>7317896
it actually is snail eggs

>>7317884
yeah, he is

>>7317843

i've heard it put by a couple of mol gast/modernist cuisine people that they're taking the technology big food companies use to make shit food cheaply, and using it to make good food better.

>>7317912

What is that even supposed to mean?

Fuck off.

>>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

>>7317853
>fad

not many people had a refrigerator or other means of prolonging perishable foods, so canned and boxed foods became very important

do you know what 'fad' means?

>>7317767
You should really consider cutting or burning or self-flagellating or really just about anything other than posting. You would be doing us all a great service.

>>7317879
My thoughts exactly. I buy cage free not because it's better for me but because it's better for the animals.

>>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.

>>7317857
Careful man, I think he might be bants intolerant.

It's alright, but given the choice I would probably choose a more traditional fine dining experience instead.

>>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.

>>7317786
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X11GbEwxDQc

>spend 3 days making strawberry bullshit
>at the end have fake strawberry filled with... ice cream?
>cracks it open after it's done to serve...
Totally legit.

>>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.

File: 1411972670159.jpg (54KB, 498x500px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 498x500px

>>7317767
>does not refer to advanced chemical processes that separate nutrients and anti-nutrients without the use of heat, yielding exceptionally nutritious food

>refers to over-processing of ingredients, effectively producing candy

>>7318380
>anti-nutrient
Thanks Professor Weeb.

>>7318387
>>anti-nutrient
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinutrient

>>7318115
The pacing on this edit is somewhere between "soothing" and "agonizing".

File: Jello-Salad-22.jpg (62KB, 400x362px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 400x362px

You faggots forgot your grandparents had their food fads too, and they were pig disgusting.

>>7317767
Kek'd at the filename

>>7318380
>>7318405
>but, since these compounds may also have beneficial effects, such genetic modifications could make the foods more nutritious but not improve people's health

File: molecular gastronomy in a nutshell.jpg (34KB, 450x340px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 450x340px

Stupid shit.

>>7318012
>better for the animals
They're crammed into one big cage rather that individual ones. Often this gives them less space. Enjoy your meme.

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.

>>7320113

lol no.

i mean it came from experimentation with hydrocolloids for sure but it isn't so much about the appearance of things, it was always possible to do a lot appearance wise with traditional hydrocolloids.

>>7317767
It's pretty neat. I would try one of these places if I had tons of money to blow.

>>7318611
Yeah. Being excessive for presentation is better than jello based disasters

>>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.

I think it's cool until you get douche bags who whittle it down to 18 course meals that consist of a total of 5oz of food.

File: original.jpg (726KB, 2048x960px) Image search: [Google]

726KB, 2048x960px

>>7320506
oh yea ...

>>7320507
This is so infuriating.

>>7317931
>This shitpost is as /ck/ as you can get without including Jack, carbonara, or nationality baiting

You forgot flyover guy.

>>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?

Why does it make you angry?

>>7322112
looks like it would be annoying to eat. there are a lot of pictures of food that won't be pleasant to eat because it "looks nice"

>>7322112

Poor people/picky eaters.

>>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.

>>7322167
>A futuristic method of food preparation that avoids cooking would be ideal from a nutritional standpoint.
potato suppositories

>>7322138
It doesn't look like something you would shovel into your mouth. It looks like something you'd take your time picking at.

it's not a fad, it's experimentation

it's actually the opposite of a 'fad'

while plebs are still adhering to dual-sensory dishes and traditional textures and conceptions of food, molecular gastronomy is all about surprising you and challenging your preconceptions

pity you'll never 'get' it, stay Pleb

>>7322138

>annoying to eat

there it is

you've singlehandedly told the world that you don't like things because you don't know how to approach them

this is equivalent to being stubborn/obtuse

which is also equivalent to being cowardly/willfully ignorant

nice hole you just dug yourself in, asswad

>>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

>>7322297

>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

pick all of the above, buttmunch

keep digging that hole

>>7322312
>I'M GOING TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH AND ACT LIKE A SPASTIC HURR DURR
molecular gastronome pls

>>7322297

The idea is that you can take a bunch of little bites of really flavorful shit, and you get to choose what combinations go into each bite.

What's not to like about that? Do you even food?

>>7322312
I need to scrape specks of food of the table like a homeless drunk because the chef wants to be an 'artist'.

>>7322323
>What's not to like about that?
it's thrown across a table

File: 467837530_d1.jpg (174KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 640x360px

>>7322331

and?

have you never eaten with your fingers before?

>>7322331

They put a clean sheet down first, dum dum.

It's like a mini dessert buffet at your table, and you're allowed to attack it any way you please.

File: 193.jpg (20KB, 300x100px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x100px

>>7322331

>he doesn't eat directly off the table

No dishes to clean, it saves time.

>>7322331

refer to >>7322312

>>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

>>7322351
stop posting

>>7322359

but if I stop, then who will you wait for as you nervously refresh the page, actively seeking a means to save face?

>>7322365
there are probably other autistic molecular gastronomes posting right now, don't worry

>>7322355

Lots of people who haven't eaten at really nice restaurants, but still are interested in food and cooking, are legitimately skeptical of things like this, so often ask about it.

It seems like you're just baiting at this point.

If you think you're trolling, or somehow making someone upset, you are in the wrong place.

>>7322373
i'm not baiting or trolling, i just gave my opinion and got

>IGNORANT FAT ASSWAD NEEDS TO INHALE FOOD LOLOLOL

>>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

>>7322397

>redipping my now germ infested spoon in every mystery sauce that is also now filled with everyone else's germs

Why are you going out to dinner with people who you are too insecure to try something off of their fork, or taste a sip of their cocktail from the same glass?

>>7322139
What is up with you fatasses and your obsession with this picky eaters meme?

File: JeffreyS.jpg (50KB, 604x264px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 604x264px

>>7322456

>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?

>>7322491
sugar is in everything basic biology dumb niggie.

>>7322503
There they are again!
>b-but it's natural
>I-I'm not addicted
>s-sugar is perfectly healthy

>>7322491

It's the picky eaters who are most often malnourished, either by excessively shoveling down their tasteless and unsatisfying cheesy fries, or their 10 pounds of undressed romaine.

>>7322508
t-talking l-like t-this d-doesn't g-give y-your a-argument m-more c-credibility

>>7317767
I think stylish mixing can be very sexy desu.

>>7322545
Ah, shit, misread as mixology.
Molecular gastronomy is cool

>>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.

>>7322594
Yup, you're full of shit.

Why are there so many with the intent if getting a rise out of others on this board.

>>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

>>7322397
Don't forget this comes at the end of a 20 course meal. It's very much something to casually pick at to end the experience.

>>7322594

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

>mental gymnastics

The only thing you brought up that was even implied in the post you responded to was the definition of malnourished, which was the correct definition.

Protip: "mal-" just means "bad".

>>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

Can't tell if I-was-just-pretending-to-be-retarded or actually retarded.

>>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.

no anonymous shitposting about "cooking" is

>>7322760
>you can have cocaine every once in a while, it's fine in moderation
This is what you sound like right now.

>>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/

>you'll get laid
okay zyzz

>>7322842
but you can have cocaine every once in a while dumbshit. are you some sort of DARE retard that thinks people get hooked after doing blow once?

>>7322842
If you're under 45 and don't overindulge you can.

>>7318611
>those olives

I thought it couldn't get any worse, but those are way too many olives

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.