Re: Best frypan for frying in ?

[Guest guest]

>

> ============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.

[Guest guest]

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

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

-

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.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>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.

-

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

--- 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.

[Guest guest]

-

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

--- 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. :-)

[Guest guest]

> 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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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).

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

-

>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.

-

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

>

> 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! :-)

[Guest guest]

--- 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.

[Guest guest]

> >

> >>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.

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

,

>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

[Guest guest]

>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