• yggdar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    3 months ago

    Do you cook your pasta in a large pot, with plenty of boiling water, and a good amount of salt? Usually I just stir once just after putting the pasta in, and I never have noodles sticking together.

    • HairyHarry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It depends on the pasta (form, freshness, self-made… etc). Some has to be stirred 3-4 times others just once, in my experience.

  • OminousOrange@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    It’s not salting your water, nor the water volume to pasta ratio, nor if the water is boiling or not, nor oil in the water, but stirring early in the cooking process that will prevent sticking.

    From the great Kenji Lopez-Alt:

    Pasta is made up of flour, water, and sometimes eggs. Essentially, it’s composed of starch and protein, and not much else. Now starch molecules come aggregated into large granules that resemble little water balloons. As they get heated in a moist environment, they absorb more and more water until they finally burst, releasing the starch molecules into the water. That’s why pasta always seems to stick together at the beginning of cooking—it’s the starch molecules coming out and acting as a sort of glue, binding the pieces to each other, and to the pot.

    The problem is that first stage of cooking—the one in which starch molecules first burst and release their starch. With such a high concentration of starch right on the surface of the pasta, sticking is inevitable. However, once the starch gets rinsed away in the water, the problem is completely gone.

    So the key is to stir the pasta a few times during the critical first minute or two. After that, whether the pasta is swimming in a hot tub of water or just barely covered as it is here, absolutely no sticking occurs. I was able to clean this pot with a simple rinse.

      • OminousOrange@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yep, I really like how he applies the scientific method to cooking. Some of my favourites are how he’s found the perfect way to boil an egg, cook steaks and roasts (dry brine, reverse sear), and make chocolate chip cookies (he made over 1500 cookies testing how changing each variable changed the final cookie).

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah you only need to do it once in the beginning. Say a seconc time to make time pass.

      Not salting the water is a crime against humanity though so be aware.

      • OminousOrange@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Oh yes, I’m not saying don’t season your water. Just that seasoning the water on its own is not a way to prevent pasta sticking.

  • Squorlple@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    3 months ago

    My biggest gripe with cooking instructions is the non-specificity. “Stir pasta frequently”? How frequently? How continuously? Tell me in unit Hertz

          • prembil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Just another of those internet image optical illusions. You won’t be fooling anyone on here 🧐

        • jettrscga@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I don’t understand the basis of the 24Hz limit rumor. My monitors are 144Hz, and if I limit them to 60Hz and move my mouse around I see fewer residual mouse cursors “after-images” than I do at 144Hz. That’s a simplified test that shows that the eye can perceive motion artifacts beyond 60Hz.

          The eye can perceive LEDs that are rectified at 60Hz AC, it’s very annoying.

          • PunchingWood@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I could never tell if people who were claiming not seeing more than the 24 Hz/FPS thing were serious or just excusing poor game optimization. They were either fanboys defending a poor job of a product, or simply had terrible eyes. But I think even with the latter you’d still be able to tell the difference in smoothness.

            It’s one of those things that once you experience a higher framerate in games it’s very hard to go back to a lower setting.

            I find it hard to get used to in movies/shows though. My TV has an option to insert frames for smoother playback to make it appear a higher Hz, but it often looks unnatural. It was hard getting used to The Hobbit movie (I think it was Desolation of Smaug) that was in 48 FPS. And Avatar: Way of Water was constantly switching between lower and higher frames for regular and action scenes, it was such a jarring experience.

              • PunchingWood@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                I believe 24Hz works in movies because the way cinemas are set up. The image projected onto canvas in a dark/dim room “burn” in (not sure what the correct term is) which can make it appear smoother. This is why they can get away with it in cinemas. Plus it’s also a consistent 24Hz, which in games (and Way of Water) isn’t.

                People used this excuse for games, to make games more “cinematic”, but that was just an absolute horseshit excuse for games being poorly optimised. Especially if the framerate wasn’t locked to 24FPS, and because home monitors and TVs don’t work the same as cinema projectors.

                I’m sure if all cinemas and media would move to a higher framerate/Hz it would eventually just feel normal though. It just often takes a lot of time getting used to, especially for cinema experiences.

            • SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I used to have a 4k tv I used as a monitor. It was 60hz. When I was tired, my eyes would vibrate back and forth trying to play nice with the frame rate, blurring everything up. Very difficult to read. Huge increase in headaches.

              Switched to 120hz tv (all other specs equal) and the problem stopped entirely and hasn’t resurfaced in the 6 years since.

              A person may not notice it directly, but it does matter.

              I don’t really notice in movies and stuff but those are so damned chaotic anyway that it probably really doesn’t matter as much. (I don’t like live action, it’s difficult af to follow)

              I haven’t noticed in games really but i mostly play console where that’s not really something you can usually tweak

              • PunchingWood@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                It’s often weird how people don’t notice it much when you turn a setting on or off. But then I usually whip out the UFO site and they’re immediately convinced (it’s also easier to explain).

                I have to say that on the PS5 the framerate differences have been quite noticeable. Especially first-party titles that support performance mode to go up to 60+ FPS instead of a usually locked 30, like in God of War and Horizon games.

                • SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I haven’t really run into ps5 issues, but then physical media is very difficult to find for 5, so I only have 4 games for ps5 vs 50+ for ps4 (I don’t buy digital games, ever).

                  But I guess I don’t really pay much attention to it either. As long as it works well enough I don’t usually mess with the display settings other than turning gama waaaaaaay up so I can see shit properly… my tv doesn’t support hdr, which I think became standard in 2017, or anything newer than that which newer games are built to use, so I mostly just leave the defaults alone. I definitely notice some games are smoother than others, but that could just as easily be the texture pack or resource utilization as well.

                  Back when I was playing games on my phone, I’d actually turn down the refresh… sure this game can run at 120, but it can also run at 30 or 60, let’s see what the lowest I can stand is! I don’t do that anymore, but it was good for battery life :)

          • Hjalmar@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            I think it’s the limit for what most people can see as jittery motion. You may be able to differentiate between higher FPS settings, but above 24 hertz most people shouldn’t be able to see discrete steps.

            That’s at least how I’ve come to understand it

          • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            24hz is the lower limit. People will perceive 24hz as a smooth sequence, especially with motion blur, while anything below it will start to look choppy. Of course humans can perceive higher frequencies. But 24hz became the standard because celluloid film is expensive especially in the early days of cinema. The less frames you need to shoot the less film you need to buy and develop. And film back then was probably not sensitive enough for the lower exposure times that come with higher frame rates.

          • gens@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Your eyes are not digital. Nothing physical really is. Think about a camera flash. They can get well under 3.33ms, meaning over 300fps, and you can still see it clearly (and painfully). Same for a monitor, it also has a “response time”. It is how long it takes for a pixel to transition color. (Usually “gray to gray”, as in one shade of gray to another. Black to white would be longer, as is for eyes.)

            So ofc you would see all the mice.

            It’s also why motion blur is a thing, even though it was usually implemented incorrectly. Seeing every motion on a tv or monitor in perfect sharpness feels weird, because they are pictures not actual movements.

            Your brain makes movements out of it all.

            Anyway: 16 is minimum, 24 is good for most movies, 30 for slower games, 60 minimum for fps (75 and above for faster fps, even though i played xonotic on 45), 120 for vr.

        • Prime@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          No it can see much more. Bonus: your brain can ‘see’ more than 100hz too. Google bundesen tva. Source i worked on programs to measure it for my gfs phd. Also i play fps :D

    • Scrollone@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, I also don’t get it. I don’t stir pasta, maybe once in the middle. It never sticks.

  • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    3 months ago

    I have actually never seen this before. Other comments are saying its because you dont salt your water and i do so probably thats why. It also makes the taste better so overall recommended.

    • toofpic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      You can add some oil so pasta won’t also stick when you have cold leftovers. I add both oil and salt in the very beginning, because there’s no reason to not do that, and I have a feeling of the right amount compared to the amount of water.
      And I stir once, about a minute after putting the pasta in, because something tends to stick to the bottom in the very beginning. Afterwards, it’s just not necessary.

      • HairyHarry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        I add both oil and salt in the very beginning, because there’s no reason to not do that.

        If you really like to impregnate your pasta, so that it won’t absorb your sauce (or less well), then you are right about the there-is-no-reason-part in your answer.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        You ever heard the saying “like oil and water”? Oil doesn’t mix with water. It floats on the surface. Adding it just wastes 100% of the oil.

        • toofpic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          Oh, thank you for providing me with this rare knowledge. But what happens while you boil pasta, is pasta turning around and soaking the oil in. I wouldn’t be doing that if it wouldn’t help with pasta stickiness.
          And as other people comment here, oil gets into pasta so you can have a problem with sauce not soaking in, but when I’m making something like bolognese, I sometimes pour pasta into the frying pan with the sauce, so it’s getting there for sure.

  • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’ve never once had pasta sticking together in the pot, regardless of what I do.

  • niktemadur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    137 times more powerful than the Electromagnetism you try and use to tear them apart, behold the Strong Pasta Friendship Force!