Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 > > ============When comparing sat fats to pufa this point is > completely irrelevant. The sat fat provides a somewhat > protective effect against the oxidation and oxidative effect > of the pufa inherent to the primarily sat fat product. So in > reality NO they are NOT getting the same kind of damaged fats > when PUFA is used alone. You're still misunderstanding me. I'm not comparing frying with lard to frying with pufa. I'm comparing the number of molecules of oxidized fat to be got from _frying_ with lard, to the number of molecules of oxidized fat to be got from the _finish_ on one's cast iron pan, which quickly approaches zero with every use after the first. The former, I believe, would be astronomically greater than the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 You're taking 6+ classes next semester? Wow, that would be quite a load. Tom > > Oh, I'll never finish college ;-) > > But I should have an answer by next semester! Organic is my only chem class > now, which may or may not contain an answer in the next few weeks (probably > not) and next semester I have three chem classes including orgo 2 and biochem > (also an independent study doing research into the different shapes of crystals > buckminsterfullerene will produce when dissolved in different solvents, plus > my non-chem load, physics 2, a & p2, and cell biology). > > Chris > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 - I'm positive that's not what Mike meant. It seemed to me he was asking what happens to the _food_ during the months or years it takes for the non-stick seasoning to fully develop, and that strikes me as an important question, though we can probably only speculate on the answer. >The months and years are necessary to produce a really good, >and reliably non-stick seasoning. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 - >I'm comparing the number of >molecules of oxidized fat to be got from _frying_ with lard, >to the number of molecules of oxidized fat to be got from >the _finish_ on one's cast iron pan, which quickly approaches >zero with every use after the first. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're the one who brought up frying in this thread. IOW, some of us were suggesting that cooking on a surface of burned fat might not be a good idea, and one of your responses was that frying is worse, so you felt seasoned cast iron would be fine. There are a few issues to consider, some of which I think are misconceptions on your part. First, you seem to be assuming that after a very brief period (perhaps as brief as one initial seasoning and heating) the danger of oxidizing (or carbonizing if you prefer) fat disappears. This is inconsistent with the months or even years you agree it takes for seasoning to fully develop, but it's also inconsistent with basic chemistry. In the real world, reactions don't consume literally 100% of the reagents, and reactions with intermediate steps don't always uniformly proceed to completion. A lipid molecule isn't going to instantly transform into pure carbon, and a large number of lipid molecules certainly won't all simultaneously make an instantaneous wormhole-style jump to their post-carbonization state. So in fact, lipids will be present in various stages of decomposition over the course of the development of the non-stick carbonized layer. Second, you seem to be assuming that once generated, the carbon layer (or whatever exactly it actually is) is static, unchanging and by extension invulnerable, whereas in fact parts of it are undoubtedly wearing off and being replaced with every use of the pan. Whether it's " soft " due to being formed from animal fats or " hard " due to being formed from vegetable oils, it's still soft by comparison to just about any other cooking surface out there. I'm not saying cast iron is definitely bad news, though I certainly would advise against using vegetable oil for the initial seasoning. (Your suggestion, to use vegetable oil for the initial coating and thereafter cook with animal fats as usual, doesn't seem to be in line with the thrust of the article which advises seasoning with vegetable oil, since as you (and the article) say, it takes the seasoning months or even years to fully develop. IOW, the article's author would seem to be suggesting cooking with vegetable oil for an extended period of time.) But more to the point, I'm with Mike: despite the inarguable convenience of cooking on post-seasoning cast iron, the risks and uncertainties seem much too large to support using un-coated cast iron without extensive further scientific study. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 OK, here you go .. use soapstone! You can use it for frying, it says, and you can't say it isn't natural. http://www.fantes.com/soapstone.htm BTW I recalled during this discussion that my Mom's favorite way to do steak was to put it under the broiler. It was wonderful. I don't do it that way because I tend to set the smoke alarm off when I do it (I don't believe we HAD smoke alarms in those days). Broiled steaks taste a lot like bbq, if you do it right. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > > I'm positive that's not what Mike meant. It seemed to me he > was asking what happens to the _food_ during the months or > years it takes for the non-stick seasoning to fully develop, I know, and what I'm saying is that the protective coating is there from the beginning, and that the months or years is necessary only to thicken and _enhance_ the non-stick quality of the pan, not to make it safe for use. I really don't think there's even any danger if one _fries_ in an unseasoned iron pan. Iron can neither dissolve in fat, nor be carried by it, only water, but like I said before, I'm conceding to any concern about iron poisoning since it may theoretically be possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 - Well, as far as iron exposure goes, right off the bat, if the coating needs " enhancing " , then it's not fully protective because the metal understructure is still interacting with the food. >and what I'm saying is that the protective coating >is there from the beginning, and that the months or years >is necessary only to thicken and _enhance_ the non-stick >quality of the pan, not to make it safe for use. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 Heidi- It certainly looks like an interesting oddball material for cooking with, but I'm nonetheless not sure it's a good idea. It's basically made of talc (well, talc plus other stuff) and IIRC talc isn't especially friendly, its common use notwithstanding. Also, the site says " Oiling and repeated use give it a dark shiny hue, reminiscent of black marble " , so it sounds like it's getting seasoned much like cast iron, with the attendant possibility of harmful lipid combustion products making their way into the food. >OK, here you go .. use soapstone! You can use it >for frying, it says, and you can't say it isn't natural. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 Those look really nice. They are probably really heavy though. RE: Re: Best frypan for frying in ? OK, here you go .. use soapstone! You can use it for frying, it says, and you can't say it isn't natural. http://www.fantes.com/soapstone.htm BTW I recalled during this discussion that my Mom's favorite way to do steak was to put it under the broiler. It was wonderful. I don't do it that way because I tend to set the smoke alarm off when I do it (I don't believe we HAD smoke alarms in those days). Broiled steaks taste a lot like bbq, if you do it right. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 Interesting. Pretty. Heavy, yes. And I'd also bet they crack fairly easily (as evidenced by the mention in the description). Tom > > > OK, here you go .. use soapstone! You can use it > for frying, it says, and you can't say it isn't natural. > > http://www.fantes.com/soapstone.htm > > BTW I recalled during this discussion that > my Mom's favorite way to do steak was to > put it under the broiler. It was wonderful. > I don't do it that way because I tend > to set the smoke alarm off when I do it (I don't > believe we HAD smoke alarms in those days). > > Broiled steaks taste a lot like bbq, if you > do it right. > > -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're the one who brought up frying > in this thread. IOW, some of us were suggesting that cooking on > a surface of burned fat might not be a good idea, and one of your > responses was that frying is worse, so you felt seasoned cast iron > would be fine. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about what I'm saying. The concern was that the initial seasoning of a cast iron pan using vegetable oil could be a source of oxidized fats. I pointed out that any time one fries in _any_ sort of pan, with _any_ sort of fat, one is going to inevitably get at least some oxidized fat, and most certainly far more than could come from the carbonized lining of a cast iron pan. > First, you seem to be assuming that after a very brief period > (perhaps as brief as one initial seasoning and heating) the > danger of oxidizing (or carbonizing if you prefer) fat disappears. oxidizing and carbonizing are different things. One can't prefer one term to the other. Carbonizing is what's desired here, oxidizing is what is to be avoided, at least as much as is possible. Also, what do you mean by " the danger of oxidizing fat disappears " ? That danger never disappears, regardless of what type of pan is used. The danger of getting oxidized fat from the initial seasoning is all that disappears. Oxidized fat is still a fat, a damaged fat, and a health risk. Carbonized fat is no longer a fat, but rather carbon, and is not a health risk. > This is inconsistent with the months or even years you agree it > takes for seasoning to fully develop, but it's also inconsistent > with basic chemistry. In the real world, reactions don't consume > literally 100% of the reagents, and reactions with intermediate > steps don't always uniformly proceed to completion. A lipid > molecule isn't going to instantly transform into pure carbon, > and a large number of lipid molecules certainly won't all > simultaneously make an instantaneous wormhole-style jump to their > post-carbonization state. There's no " instaneous " anything involved. The first seasoning involves an extended period at high heat, and yes, it should result in nearly 100% conversion of the fat to carbon. > So in fact, lipids will be present in various stages of > decomposition over the course of the development of the non- > stick carbonized layer. Lipids, while still in fact lipids, are too soft to form a permanent part of the lining. Even without using water or scrubbing, all but a negligible amount of damaged fat can be removed with a paper towel. Such a film of fat as then remains could impart no more oxidized fat to the next meal cooked in it than inevitably comes from heating even solid fats to frying temperature in _any_ kind of pan. That's unavoidable, and if you fear it, you shouldn't fry at all. > Second, you seem to be assuming that once generated, the carbon > layer (or whatever exactly it actually is) is static, unchanging > and by extension invulnerable, whereas in fact parts of it are > undoubtedly wearing off and being replaced with every use of the > pan. No, I'm not assuming that. The lining is of course in a constant process of wearing off into the food, and of being built up from newly carbonized materials (not just oil) from the food cooked in it. However what is wearing off in the food is _carbon_, and harmless. Ancient people's food had far more carbon in it than ours, due to cooking over open fires. Your concern supposedly is not carbon, but rather oxidized fat, and I'm telling you that the seasoned surface of cast iron alone is as negligible a source of _that_ as can be imagined. The only question remaining is whether the seasoning blocks the absorption into the food of iron from the pan, and whether this is a source of iron poisoning in any case. I can't say for certain that such iron absorption isn't possible, so I've dropped that point, though I guess it's obvious that I'm personally not concerned about it. > Whether it's " soft " due to being formed from animal fats or > " hard " due to being formed from vegetable oils, it's still > soft by comparison to just about any other cooking surface out > there. > > I'm not saying cast iron is definitely bad news, though I > certainly would advise against using vegetable oil for the > initial seasoning. See, this is what is so mind-boggling to me. There is not the remotest chance that you'll ever get anything more than a few molecules of oxidized fat from this one time use of vegetable oil as a source of carbon. I'm afraid that Fallon and crew are guilty of creating and encouraging some forms of food fanaticism of their own, so that now even a few molecules of vegetable oil, or soy, or grain in meat, or whatever is being scrupulously avoided to an unecessary and impractical degree. That's not healthy (mentally). > (Your suggestion, to use vegetable oil for the initial coating > and thereafter cook with animal fats as usual, doesn't seem to > be in line with the thrust of the article which advises seasoning > with vegetable oil, since as you (and the article) say, it takes > the seasoning months or even years to fully develop. IOW, the > article's author would seem to be suggesting cooking with > vegetable oil for an extended period of time.) The article in no way requires one to use vegetable oil for anything but the initial seasoning. I see that I'm going to have to attempt to describe exactly what goes on in seasoning in some detail, so here it goes. During any frying, sauteing or whatever, that food which is in direct contact with the bottom is naturally at the highest temperature of any in the pan. In the process, carbonization of organic substances occurs, and atoms of carbon are deposited onto the surface. The action of stirring, and better yet, sauteing (French " making to jump (by shaking the pan contents) " ) polishes this layer of carbon, making it smooth and non-stick. The thicker this layer of carbon becomes over time, the better it evens out the originally rough surface of the pan, and the thicker it becomes, the less likely that occasional harsh treatments, such as cooking foods with greater than ideal amounts of water and/or acid, or rough scraping, will break through to the iron beneath. This is the only reason why it is said that time and use create a better lining. The ongoing creation of the lining that takes place after the initial seasoning obviously involves the carbonization of other materials other than vegetable oil, those other materials being the food, so obviously it's not necessary to cook only with vegetable oil while creating the lining (a period involving the entire life of the pan). Later carbonized material creates a sufficiently hard lining because it is laid down incrementally and well polished after each addition of carbon. Vegetable oil is only used for its hardness for the initial seasoning, because that seasoning has not the benefit of being slowly and methodically built up over time. It's just giving the seasoning a good start. If this one time use of vegetable oil is objectionable to anybody, it can easily be skipped. After enough time one's lining will end up the same as one initiated with vegetable oil anyway. > But more to the point, I'm with Mike: despite the inarguable > convenience of cooking on post-seasoning cast iron, the risks > and uncertainties seem much too large to support using un-coated > cast iron without extensive further scientific study. I'm with Mike too. If indeed there's any concern about iron poisoning from cast iron, then one shouldn't use it. I'm no longer contesting anything other than the idea that the seasoning on a cast iron pan is a significant source of oxidized fats. I say look into the soap stone to which Heidi directed our attention. Although, if you read that page of the catalogue, it would seem that a carbonized layer of oil forms on that with use as well. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 > It certainly looks like an interesting oddball material for cooking with, >but I'm nonetheless not sure it's a good idea. It's basically made of talc >(well, talc plus other stuff) and IIRC talc isn't especially friendly, its >common use notwithstanding. Also, the site says " Oiling and repeated use >give it a dark shiny hue, reminiscent of black marble " , so it sounds like >it's getting seasoned much like cast iron, with the attendant possibility >of harmful lipid combustion products making their way into the food. > > - Huh. Ok, well, I tried. You can also just eat it raw, or hold the steak on an oleander branch over a campfire ;--) (For future people reading this in the archives: this is a JOKE. Don't do it! Oleander is a lot worse for you than talc). -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 In a message dated 11/22/03 10:35:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, kristenchavez@... writes: > I am not a chemist (far from it :-) ), so these are just my observations > based on > my experience. My basic assumption that seasoning is an interaction between > a substance and oil, rather than just an alteration to oil through heating, > may be > incorrect. , I'm no chemist nor artist but I suppose I am an amateur potter, chemist, and cook, in some sense, and my observations based on my experience with the latter, since I cook in corningware, is that you're correct. The surface of cast iron changes when you cook with it every time, and you can observe a clear interaction with the food and the pan. Not so with corningware. I've left fat in a pan with the heat on, and resulted with nothing but a hot pan, whereas I've accidentally put a wonderful seasoning on cast iron by the same accidental method in the past. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 At 09:26 PM 11/21/2003 -0800, you wrote: > > >OK, here you go .. use soapstone! You can use it >for frying, it says, and you can't say it isn't natural. > >http://www.fantes.com/soapstone.htm Husband carves soapstone. All carvable stone has toxins you don't want to breathe in. Putting your food directly on it and heating to release toxins not safe, imo. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 I would like, if possible, to turn the thread now > to speculation and experimentation on the possibility of creating > a similar carbonized surface on enamel or glassware, this might > be as good as the non-stick surface on an iron pan, but of course > there would be no worry about iron-poisoning. I also think that > such a thing would more closely resemble prehistoric cook ware > than anything else. Does anybody on the list with corningware or > something similar care to experiment with putting such a finish > on it? I think that such ware is too slick to be able to brush > a film of oil onto, so it might require filling the pot/pan with > as little oil as will evenly cover the bottom, and then burning it. > The slickness of the glass might make it impossible for the finish > to cling to the pan, and so a second stage of the experiment might > entail roughing up the surface first with sand paper or the like. > Any takers? ----, I think that in order to get a non-stick, " carbonized " fat surface on ceramic, it would have to be unglazed and porous. From reading a cookbook called " real stews " , a lot of primitive societies cooked in earthenware. I suspect this was unglazed pottery. As an artist, I have first hand experience with " seasoning " wooden palettes with linseed oil. Before you use a new palette, you rub oil into it. Then everytime you paint, oil paint gets smeared on and wiped off (with some getting rubbed in) when you're done. Over many uses, the wood changes in nature, and becomes becomes slick and glossy as if it had been varnished, and less and less oil and paint is absorbed. I imagine cooking in a porous vessel would be something like that, but with heat speeding up the process. There are also glass palettes, and all the paint wipes off completely when you use them. Because they are already hard and slick, they never become (and never need to be) seasoned. I imagine that glazed ceramic and glass pans are the same. I think seasoning works in a cast iron pan because they are somewhat porous, and the fat is allowed to react with the iron. I don't think it is physically possible to create a carbonized surface on a glazed or glass surface, since there is no interaction between the fat and the pan because of the heat resistant quality of the glazed surface. Roughing up the surface might work for ceramic since underneath the glaze it is porous, but I don't think it would work for glass-- I think the very nature of glass precludes this. I am not a chemist (far from it :-) ), so these are just my observations based on my experience. My basic assumption that seasoning is an interaction between a substance and oil, rather than just an alteration to oil through heating, may be incorrect. And thanks everybody for all the info and fascinating discussion on seasoning cast iron pans (IIRC I was the one who first asked about it, since I was confused about what pre-seasoning was and why the directions insist on veg. oil). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 >Husband carves soapstone. All carvable stone has toxins you don't want to >breathe in. Putting your food directly on it and heating to release toxins >not safe, imo. > >Wanita Seriously? That is interesting. I know talc is bad to breathe (so are glass slivers, when you are doing insulation). I wonder what toxins it has in it? Soapstone has been used to keep food hot for a long time, tho when I had one it was not in contact with the food. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 >I think that in order to get a non-stick, " carbonized " fat surface on ceramic, it >would have to be unglazed and porous. From reading a cookbook called " real >stews " , a lot of primitive societies cooked in earthenware. I suspect this was >unglazed pottery. As an artist, I have first hand experience with " seasoning " >wooden palettes with linseed oil. I think this is a good point. In my reading of " traditional " cooking it tends to go in a few categories: 1. Boiling. This was really common, and could be done in a skin stretched over a fire, or in a watertight basket, log, or pot with hot stones tossed in. 2. Broiling. Hang the meat over a fire on a stick. 3. Baking. Bury the meat in a pit lined with leaves. Build a fire on top. Or make a little " hut " of clay or stones and build a fire in it and sweep it out, or build a fire around it. Or slap dough on a hot stone to bake it. But ... no frying (or not that I've read) until metal was invented. In methods 1 and 3, permeable surfaces do get impregnated with fats. In boiling though, the fats never get very hot. In baking they might get carbonized, and you can kind of fry stuff (I " fry " my bacon on a broiler sheet in the oven). Broiling steak is really tasty, though it can have carcinogens we are told. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 - >I pointed out that any time one fries in _any_ sort of >pan, with _any_ sort of fat, one is going to inevitably get at >least some oxidized fat, Yes, I understand that, but you're seemingly assuming that the only thing someone might do with a cast iron pan is fry. >Carbonizing is what's >desired here, oxidizing is what is to be avoided, at least >as much as is possible. And so you think carbonization (as you call it) is a completely different process that doesn't overlap with oxidization at all? >That's >unavoidable, and if you fear it, you shouldn't fry at all. And in fact I don't. I suppose I might fry once in a blue moon, but that's it. I saute, I warm, I gently cook... and, admittedly, I sear my steaks, which is probably a very bad idea. >However what is wearing off in the >food is _carbon_, and harmless. I suppose I could be wrong, but it seems to me that carbonization requires high temperatures, and that therefore the gradual building of the seasoning layer requires regular cooking at very high temperatures. No? If so, plenty of fat is going to be oxidized during the process. >Ancient people's food had >far more carbon in it than ours, due to cooking over open >fires. Uh, so? >I'm afraid that Fallon and crew >are guilty of creating and encouraging some forms of food >fanaticism of their own, so that now even a few molecules of >vegetable oil, or soy, or grain in meat, or whatever is being >scrupulously avoided to an unecessary and impractical degree. >That's not healthy (mentally). You're not even directly addressing the point here, you're just engaging in psychoanalysis, which is insulting and ad hominem. However... Nobody here (that I know of) advocates 100% elimination of vegetable oils from the diet. Some people even use a little flax. However, the more fragile (i.e. the less saturated) the oil, the more care ought to be taken with it. As to soy and grain in meat, if you're not even interested in the science, that's your business, but tests have shown that as little as a few pounds fed to an otherwise-pastured cow a day can decimate the CLA content of the meat, so it makes sense to seek fully grass-fed beef. (In this case, those of us who care are actually more rigorous than Fallon and Enig, since they say a little grain finishing is OK since it sorta kinda resembles cows eating the heads of mature grasses back in the pre-grain day, but I'd argue that modern grains bear so little resemblance to ancient grasses that there's no real equivalency, and nutrient testing bears this assumption out.) And I'm not even going to dignify your " a few molecules " crack with a response. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 At 09:39 AM 11/22/2003 -0800, you wrote: > >>Husband carves soapstone. All carvable stone has toxins you don't want to >>breathe in. Putting your food directly on it and heating to release toxins >>not safe, imo. >> >>Wanita > >Seriously? That is interesting. I know talc is bad to breathe (so are glass slivers, when you are doing insulation). I wonder what toxins it has in it? > >Soapstone has been used to keep food hot for a long time, tho when I had one it was not in contact with the food. > >-- Heidi This chemical toxicity site http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/chemicals/chemicals-detail.asp?Main_ID=2 lists soapstone and talc as possibly containing asbestos and/or boric acid, baby powder testing not trusted in U.S. Soapstone not subject to testing. This cookware is Brazilian soapstone. Wondering now about soapstone woodstoves? Quite common, chimney and stove work hubby's profession. Don't think I'd want to live in a house that had a soapstone stove. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 > > I think that in order to get a non-stick, " carbonized " fat surface > on ceramic, it would have to be unglazed and porous. Yes, I think you're right. > I am not a chemist (far from it :-) ), so these are just my > observations based on my experience. I'm not a chemist either, but what you say makes sense to me. > (IIRC I was the one who first asked about it, since I was confused > about what pre-seasoning was and why the directions insist on veg. oil). L.O.L. Were you? I didn't notice that. I guess if they're not going to label the cans, there's no way to tell when you're about to open one full of worms! :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > > Yes, I understand that, but you're seemingly assuming that the > only thing someone might do with a cast iron pan is fry. No, but frying is the only use for which _I_ personally have ever recommended it. You see all the time T.V. shows, magazine articles, etc. showing cast iron pots being used for stews and such, but I personally have never had much success maintaining a nice non-stick finish on a pan used in that way. I use plain old stainless steel saucepans for that purpose, and save the cast iron primarily for frying eggs. I suppose if one were to make a point of alternating between using their pan or pot for frying, and then boiling, that they might have no trouble maintaining a nice seasoning. I don't know, but again I have to reiterate that it's never been my mission to turn anybody on to cast iron anyway. So please don't cast me in that role. > And so you think carbonization (as you call it) is a completely > different process that doesn't overlap with oxidization at all? " Carbonization " is what the world calls it, not just me, and yes, oil undoubtedly goes through a brief stage where it is oxidized before it gets completely burnt leaving only carbon behind in the pan. > >That's > >unavoidable, and if you fear it, you shouldn't fry at all. > > And in fact I don't. I suppose I might fry once in a blue moon, > but that's it. I saute, I warm, I gently cook... and, admittedly, > I sear my steaks, which is probably a very bad idea. Well then here at last is the admission that you're in fact suspicious of frying of any sort, not just in cast iron pans. Please don't confound separate, if overlapping, issues. > I suppose I could be wrong, but it seems to me that carbonization > requires high temperatures, and that therefore the gradual building > of the seasoning layer requires regular cooking at very high > temperatures. No? Do you really imagine that those of us who use cast iron wouldn't notice that our pans are glowing red and that food dropped into them was instantly igniting into flame and smoke? I don't fry eggs on any higher heat in my cast iron pan than I would in any other kind of pan. The very tiny percentage of organic molecules in the food that actually come into direct contact with the bottom surface of the pan, undoubtedly is heated to a greater temperature than is the average for the total amount of food in the pan, and this is of course the source of the carbon, but as I've said again and again and again, _every_ cooking process besides steaming and boiling, does exactly the same thing. If your opposition is in fact to any cooking process that creates carbon or oxidization, then please state your case as such and stop trying to represent cast iron as a _special_ problem in this regard. > >Ancient people's food had > >far more carbon in it than ours, due to cooking over open > >fires. > > Uh, so? Uh, so the whole crux of Fallon's argument is that ancient food preparation techniques have a proven track record, and that we ought to return to them. You're certainly free to disagree with that premise, I disagree with alot that Fallon says, but at the very least you shouldn't be surprised to see such an argument here. My point specifically is that if humans have cooked for thousands of years in such a way that a certain amount of carbon has always entered the food, then we can expect to be evolutionarily adapted to it. > You're not even directly addressing the point here, I think that I've addressed the _actual_ point several times now. > you're just engaging in psychoanalysis, which is insulting and > ad hominem. Maybe so, but I'm at loss for any other way to explain a seemingly irrational fear. > However... > > Nobody here (that I know of) advocates 100% elimination of > vegetable oils from the diet. Some people even use a little > flax. However, the more fragile (i.e. the less saturated) the > oil, the more care ought to be taken with it. Of course, but no one is recommending frying with vegetable oil. It was recommended solely for a ONE TIME SEASONING. The vegetable oil in this use is NOT a food item, merely the _source_ for one physical component of the pan. Are you claiming that enamel is a necessary nutrient every time you recommend enamelled pans? Of course not. > As to soy and grain in meat, if you're not even interested in the > science, that's your business, What do you know of my interests but what I tell you myself? This is also psychoanalysis. > but tests have shown that as little as a few pounds fed to an > otherwise-pastured cow a day can decimate the CLA content of the > meat, so it makes sense to seek fully grass-fed beef. (In this > case, those of us who care are actually more rigorous than Fallon > and Enig, If those of you " who care " really are " more rigorous than Fallon " , then that's an agenda of your own quite beside and beyond that of Fallon herself, to whose book this list is devoted, remember? You have every right to such an agenda, and even to pursue it here, but considering the list topic, you can't really be in a huff about anybody not sharing what you personally consider the necessary degree of rigor in this respect, can you? Take it up with Fallon, and if she rewrites her book to reflect what you say, then you'll have at least _some_ basis to insist everyone on the list defer to it. > since they say a little grain finishing is OK since it sorta kinda > resembles cows eating the heads of mature grasses back in the pre- > grain day, but I'd argue that modern grains bear so little > resemblance to ancient grasses that there's no real equivalency, > and nutrient testing bears this assumption out.) Again, take it up with Fallon, not me. In any case, I don't care if you multiply this all by ten, there still would be no reason to go into convulsions about eating a grain-fed hamburger once a year. That's fanaticism. > And I'm not even going to dignify your " a few molecules " crack > with a response. But this is seriously not a crack, and is in fact the crux of the whole matter. Because there can be no more than a few molecules left, and in reality probably none, of oxidized fat left in one's cast iron pan from the act of its initial seasoning. I still don't understand why you can't see this, but I'm going to drop this thread anyway, since it's growing increasingly hostile. Have the last word, or two, or three if you wish. I'm through. Thank you for your time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 > > > >>Husband carves soapstone. All carvable stone has toxins you don't > want to > >>breathe in. Putting your food directly on it and heating to release toxins > >>not safe, imo. > >> > >>Wanita > > > >Seriously? That is interesting. I know talc is bad to breathe (so are > glass slivers, when you are doing insulation). I wonder what toxins it has > in it? > > > >Soapstone has been used to keep food hot for a long time, tho when I had > one it was not in contact with the food. > > > >-- Heidi > > This chemical toxicity site > http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/chemicals/chemicals-detail.asp? Main_ID=2 > lists soapstone and talc as possibly containing asbestos and/or boric > acid, baby powder testing not trusted in U.S. Soapstone not subject to > testing. This cookware is Brazilian soapstone. Wondering now about > soapstone woodstoves? Quite common, chimney and stove work hubby's > profession. Don't think I'd want to live in a house that had a soapstone > stove. It's my understanding, which may be wrong, and please correct me if you know different, that the toxicity issue with talc, soapstone, asbestos, etc. is one of _inhaling_ solid _particulates_, not one of absorbing or consuming gasses or water soluble substances. This is why it's a particular (no pun intended) concern for stone workers who abrade and release dust into their work environment, thus enhaling it on a regular basis. Just as fiber- glass particulates are harmful to inhale, while solid glass ware is perfectly safe for cooking and eating off of (are we still all in agreement on that?), so too should a solid piece of soapstone be, after all dust and particulates remaining from its manufacture are washed away. Even the occasional particle of material released into the food from stirring or whatever, should simply harmlessly pass through the system undigested. Its only when large amounts of such substances are inhaled as air-born particulates that there is a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 In a message dated 11/22/03 4:32:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, liberty@... writes: > Uh, so the whole crux of Fallon's argument is that ancient > food preparation techniques have a proven track record, and > that we ought to return to them. You're certainly free to > disagree with that premise, I disagree with alot that Fallon > says, but at the very least you shouldn't be surprised to see > such an argument here. My point specifically is that if > humans have cooked for thousands of years in such a way that > a certain amount of carbon has always entered the food, then > we can expect to be evolutionarily adapted to it. I don't think this is true, but I think what is true, which agrees with your basic point, is that the healthy primitives that Price studied, who recorded their health and verified that it was in top condition, cooked over open flame, showing that the presence of carbon (and probably some oxidized fat too) does not prevent one from attaining optimal health. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2003 Report Share Posted November 23, 2003 , >Just as fiber- >glass particulates are harmful to inhale, while >solid glass ware is perfectly safe for cooking and >eating off of (are we still all in agreement on >that?), so too should a solid piece of soapstone >be, after all dust and particulates remaining from >its manufacture are washed away. Even the occasional >particle of material released into the food from >stirring or whatever, should simply harmlessly pass >through the system undigested. Its only when large >amounts of such substances are inhaled as air-born >particulates that there is a problem. Guess my question is if they're removing asbestos containing furnaces out of everywhere as unsafe why would cookware or woodstoves made of soapstone, possibly containing varying amounts of asbestos and that are heated too be considered safe? Realize airborne is most harmful. Does heat release minute particles or toxic gas? Fine sanding and beeswaxing makes a shiny exterior but doesn't lock it. Wouldn't be able to gather heat then slowly radiate it out otherwise. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2003 Report Share Posted November 23, 2003 >It's my understanding, which may be wrong, and >please correct me if you know different, that the >toxicity issue with talc, soapstone, asbestos, >etc. is one of _inhaling_ solid _particulates_, : I think that is a big part of the issue but in this case I'd tend to agree about talc. They've been using talc for making rice flow for a long time, and it is associated with stomach cancer. Now how much talc actually gets RELEASED from soapstone would be similar to the everlasting cast iron debate! But I basically posted that humorously. Personally I think a pure rock pot would be rather difficult to deal with. I did have a soapstone " heater " that I used to put UNDER a pot, which was wonderful. You heated the rock, put it in a container, then put the pot over it, and let it cook for about 4 hours. One could probably do the same thing with granite though. (now someone tell me granite is toxic too ...). -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.