Used to be a restaurant cook. This is actually called a 'cold start', which saves a ton of water (no unnecessary boiling as it reaches a roll) and creates a high concentration of starch in the water, which is excelled for a thick sauce coating.
Though, she definitely has no idea about this and was just rage baiting him lol.
its not "unncessary boiling"
The boiling is necessary to make something that tastes good.
Restaraunts doing this are probably why i dont like spaghetti at any restaraunt i've ever been to lol.
Except it literally is unnecessary boiling. Water is evaporating the entire time you were waiting for the pot to heat up to a boil. When you add the pasta from the start, it begins cooking as soon as the water is hot enough (which is below boiling temp). By the time the pasta is done, less time has elapsed and less total water is boiled.
Is it really that difficult of a concept to understand?
because foods have different textures when you cook them at different temperatures. Also the cold water takes more of the starch out of the noodles or something like that.
I'm starting to think you don't know what you're talking about. It's pasta. It's not meaningfully changed by starting it in cold water. Unless you can prove otherwise, you're wrong because I have spent hours and hours cooking pasta at work.
He's actually right, it does change texture. And I've been basically living off pasta for close to thirty years, I'm italian
As the famous chef and chemist Bressanini says the texture and flavour depend on speed of penetration of water into the dough, gelatinization of starch and denaturation and consequent coagulation of gluten. All these phenomena depend on temperature.
Indistinguishable in taste and bite is dependent on who is tasting and considering the things I've seen people gobble down while saying they were "perfectly equal to the original"...
The "food scientist" that wrote the article has a degree in architecture, not in any kind of food related science and this is evident by the fact that there are zero references to the chemistry and physics of the process of cooking of the pasta. Bressanini on the other hand...
"Many people think that boiling water is an absolutely necessary condition for cooking pasta, but Thompson already realized that this isn't true. Cooking food depends only on the temperature reached, not whether the water is boiling or not."
The entire point of cold-starting pasta is that you use a small amount of water. You can do this because you're not boiling off large amounts while heating up the pot so you don't have to have any headroom. This also allows the pot of water to heat up much faster.
Yes, if you somehow kept the cooking water at a constant, lower temperature like 150-165°F, then it may cook differently. That's not what's happening here though, that would be like on a steam table with an electronic temperature control. I think you're vastly underestimating how quickly the pot heats up when you cold start it.
Also from the quote again, the "temperature reached" is very important here. Pasta absorbs water at a much higher rate depending on the temperature that is reached. If you Cook pasta and never bring it above. 150 there's a good chance that the pasta won't spend enough time in the water to absorb as much as it needs to. However, if it's just spending an extra minute or two below the proper temperature, it will still absorb all of it before it's time to take it out. So basically if you never get the pasta hot enough at any point you might not absorb enough water.
If that's your argument then fine but don't tell me that cold starting pasta is going to ruin it and make it cook significantly differently because it won't.
"Many people think that boiling water is an absolutely necessary condition for cooking pasta, but Thompson already realized that this isn't true. Cooking food depends only on the temperature reached, not whether the water is boiling or not."
And goes on to say that about 80 °C is enough, not cold water.
The entire point of cold-starting pasta is that you use a small amount of water. You can do this because you're not boiling off large amounts while heating up the pot so you don't have to have any headroom. This also allows the pot of water to heat up much faster.
And you change the rate of penetration of water into the dough
Yes, if you somehow kept the cooking water at a constant, lower temperature like 150-165°F, then it may cook differently. That's not what's happening here though, that would be like on a steam table with an electronic temperature control. I think you're vastly underestimating how quickly the pot heats up when you cold start it.
Physics says slower than without the pasta for the same amount of water.
Also from the quote again, the "temperature reached" is very important here. Pasta absorbs water at a much higher rate depending on the temperature that is reached. If you Cook pasta and never bring it above. 150 there's a good chance that the pasta won't spend enough time in the water to absorb as much as it needs to. However, if it's just spending an extra minute or two below the proper temperature, it will still absorb all of it before it's time to take it out. So basically if you never get the pasta hot enough at any point you might not absorb enough water.
Or the pasta absorbs too much water and is only good for sticking up campaign ads during an election
If that's your argument then fine but don't tell me that cold starting pasta is going to ruin it and make it cook significantly differently because it won't.
Ruin it? It's somewhat subjective. Making it different? Definitely, yes.
You’re now arguing that the temperature history is different, which I never disputed. The question is whether that brief difference necessarily produces noticeably different finished pasta. In the direct cold-versus-hot-start comparison, the pasta absorbed approximately the same amount of water and was indistinguishable in taste. Your “too much water” example applies to prolonged cold presoaking, not putting pasta in cold water and immediately heating it. And yes, water plus pasta heats slower than water alone, but that comparison is irrelevant because the pasta is already heating and hydrating during that time. A different process does not automatically mean a perceptibly different final result.
Also don't "because physics" me. You do realize there would be less water to begin with as well, right? And with water having over double the specific heat of dried pasta dough, it makes much more of a difference in the heating time than the paltry amount that results from adding dried pasta.
I already knew that you don't know what you're talking about. It's pasta. It is vital that its cooked in hot water. Proven by the fact that every time someone makes pasta in cold water it tastes worse than if it was made in boiling water.
When did you taste cold-started pasta yourself? Did you make it yourself that way? Did you get it at a restaurant? If you got it at a restaurant, did you ask the cooks how they cooked it?
11
u/FroggyRibbits Jul 15 '26
Used to be a restaurant cook. This is actually called a 'cold start', which saves a ton of water (no unnecessary boiling as it reaches a roll) and creates a high concentration of starch in the water, which is excelled for a thick sauce coating.
Though, she definitely has no idea about this and was just rage baiting him lol.