View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Debbie Deutsch
Posts: n/a
Default KitchenCraft cookware and waterless cooking

"Rick & Cyndi" > wrote in news:c51eb.372991

> "Vox Humana" & Cyndi" chatted about Waterless
> <snip>
> Well... I have the distinct advantage of being a former salesman
> of Waterless cookware back in the 80s - but it was for a short
> time because I didn't like the way the way they were priced and I
> wasn't going to try to force somebody to pay for something that
> even I couldn't afford. I was one of those few, hard to find
> salesman that refused to do those hard sales...! I treated
> everyone the way I would want to be treated. Period! By the
> same time, I vowed that if I ever could get the cookware at a
> decent price I would do it - in a heartbeat!
> Many years later, I found that there were/are several sellers on
> E-Bay that sell it for only $200.00 I got them and I love them.
> I've never had any problems with mine and every set that I've
> seen (by various companies) have great warrantees (sp?)... any of
> those people that complained about loose handles (or anything
> else) should have contacted either their sales rep or the
> specific company and I'm willing to bet those pieces would have
> been replaced.
> Waterless cookware is similar to anything else you want to buy,
> in the sense that you have to shop around. You can buy a
> spoonrest at some fancy-schmancy store for $ 20.00 and you can
> buy one that probably looks the same at Wal-Mart for $3.00 . The
> name on the underside will be different but the construction and
> quality are most likely similar. My $200. set of cookware looks
> pretty close to the same thing I sold in the 80s which had a
> price of... IIRC $ 1147.00 !! ... the steam release valve and
> the brand name are different but it performs exactly the same.
> The big difference was back then, I went into somebody's home and
> showed the cookware. If they bought it 5 people in the office
> made a commission... the set I bought @ E-bay paid the one person
> I bought it from (and technically, the manufacturer she got it
> from). With "KitchenCraft" you're paying for the guy to get a
> booth (or amphitheatre) at an event and paying for his commission
> and several of the people above him, at his home office... The
> price bites because you're not "just" paying for the cookware.


In support of Vox, I have two bones to pick with what you are saying.

1. The construction and physical characteristics of waterless cookware.

You have never explained why this cookware you used to sell (or the
current versions) are in any way better than any of the many brands of
good-quality cookware that have stainless steel cooking surfaces, bottoms
that are sufficiently thick (according to the material used) to heat
evenly, and tight lids. How is "waterless" cookware different and
better? Don't repeat yourself about vitamins and taste (results), tell
us how the construction is different/better than other good-quality

2. Cooking techniques that retain flavor and vitamins.

You have never explained why nuking in the microwave is not equivalent to
"waterless" cooking. Come on, say why using the same amount of water in
a covered vessel, heated to the same extent, to cook the same amount of
vegetables would give different results depending on whether a) the heat
source that turns the water to steam was a burner and the surface on
which the vegetables rest is stainless steel or b) the heat source that
turns the water to steam is microwaves and the surface on which the
vegetables rest is glass or ceramic or plastic. Are you saying that
steam created by conducted heat is different from steam created by
directly exciting the water molecules? Are you saying that the
difference affects the retention of vitamins? (Remember that microwaves
work because their frequency matches up with water molecules.) Are you
saying that stainless steel, which is supposed to not react with food,
gives different flavor results than glass or ceramic, which also are not
supposed to react with food?

Along these lines it is not at all clear to me that you loose less
vitamins by cooking that the boiling point than you do at, say, normal
oven temperatures. Can you cite any scientific analysis to back up the
claim about retaining more vitamins because the vegetables are being
steamed instead of sauteed, roasted, or grilled?

The last observation that I will make in support of Vox's comments has to
do with claims. You constantly compare "waterless" cooking with some
worst case - the sort of case that one hopes and expects is really rare.
Sales people are (sometimes) trained to do that. But one hopes that few
people cook their veggies with 1/2 stick of butter or drown them in water
before boiling them to death, and very, very, few people do not have a
microwave. No doubt there are a few bad examples like that out there,
but the arguments that you are making are most effective with the most
gullible audience that doesn't know much about cooking techniques and is
willing to accept assertions such as yours without any experience that
tells them otherwise. Combine that with your refusal to admit that other
cooking methods might give similar results without requiring special
"waterless" cookware, and I think that Vox has plenty of good reason to
say what she has.


P.S.If you really want to get good flavor, you are best off using at
least a little fat. Not oceans, but at least a small amount, depending
on the cooking method. Some chemicals that give flavor dissolve in
oil/fat and not in water. This will carry the flavors of herbs and
spices and help spread it through the dish. Further, if you want nice,
intense flavors, try roasting or grilling your veggies. That takes
waterless cooking one step further; instead of losing flavor to water
that is poured down the drain, you are actually removing water from the
food and intensifying its flavor.

Anti-spam advisory: The email address used to post this article is a
throw-away address. It will be invalidated and replaced with another if
and when it is found by spammers.