I am looking for an oil to use for frying.

I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
shortenings) because of health concerns.

The problem is that the liquid oils I have tried start to smoke or smell
rancid when frying.

Specifically I want something for frying french toast or pancakes.

Something that won't smoke or smell bad at frying temperatures.

Thanks.

Matt wrote:
> I am looking for an oil to use for frying.
>
> I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
> shortenings) because of health concerns.
>
> The problem is that the liquid oils I have tried start to smoke or smell
> rancid when frying.
>
> Specifically I want something for frying french toast or pancakes.
>
> Something that won't smoke or smell bad at frying temperatures.
>
> Thanks.

This is very new to me. Never heard of "frying" French Toast or
pancakes. Can you describe the process in more detail? I'm having
trouble picturing how you'd do either.

As for the oil, you can google for a list of smoke points of cooking
oils and find one you like with a high smoke point.

On 2006-09-19, Matt > wrote:

> Something that won't smoke or smell bad at frying temperatures.

Refined canola works just fine for me. I use it for stir fry, too,
though I prefer peanut oil. You certainly don't need to hit 374 deg F
or higher for pancakes and Frenchtoast.

nb

Matt said...

> I am looking for an oil to use for frying.
>
> I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
> shortenings) because of health concerns.
>
> The problem is that the liquid oils I have tried start to smoke or
smell
> rancid when frying.
>
> Specifically I want something for frying french toast or pancakes.
>
> Something that won't smoke or smell bad at frying temperatures.
>
> Thanks.


The healthiest oil is olive oil. Add a pat of butter to a tablespoon of
olive oil for better flavor.

You don't actually "fry" french toast or pancakes! I don't think there's
any way to cook french toast or pancakes without accempting the lingering
aroma.

If you want to deep-fry, peanut oil has the highest smoke point but it
certainly will leave a stink behind if not super-well ventilated.

If you're really concerned about your health, what are you doing eating
french toast or pancakes, drowned in butter and maple syrup to begin
with?

But you asked...

Andy

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:25:40 GMT, Matt >
wrote:

>I am looking for an oil to use for frying.
>
>I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
>shortenings) because of health concerns.

Check out the Crisco in the green can. It is no hydrogenated and has
no trans fats.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974

Andy wrote:
> Matt said...
>
> > I am looking for an oil to use for frying.
> >
> > I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
> > shortenings) because of health concerns.
> >
> > The problem is that the liquid oils I have tried start to smoke or
> smell
> > rancid when frying.
> >
> > Specifically I want something for frying french toast or pancakes.
> >
> > Something that won't smoke or smell bad at frying temperatures.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
>
> The healthiest oil is olive oil. Add a pat of butter to a tablespoon of
> olive oil for better flavor.
>
> You don't actually "fry" french toast or pancakes! I don't think there's
> any way to cook french toast or pancakes without accempting the lingering
> aroma.
>
> If you want to deep-fry, peanut oil has the highest smoke point but it
> certainly will leave a stink behind if not super-well ventilated.
>
> If you're really concerned about your health, what are you doing eating
> french toast or pancakes, drowned in butter and maple syrup to begin
> with?
>
The healthiest way to do french toast is to deep fry it in cod liver
oil.

> But you asked...
>
> Andy

salgud wrote:

> This is very new to me. Never heard of "frying" French Toast or
> pancakes. Can you describe the process in more detail? I'm having
> trouble picturing how you'd do either.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...tionary&va=fry
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...fry*1+0&dict=A
http://www.onelook.com/?w=fry&ls=a

Matt wrote:
> I am looking for an oil to use for frying.
>
> I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
> shortenings) because of health concerns.
>
> The problem is that the liquid oils I have tried start to smoke or smell
> rancid when frying.
>
> Specifically I want something for frying french toast or pancakes.
>
> Something that won't smoke or smell bad at frying temperatures.


When I think of frying at high temperatures in oil, I think of deep
frying, as in deep frying french fries, or fish and chips, or tempura,
or fried chicken. For that, if you don't want a hydrogenated oil or
tropical oil, your best bet might be peanut oil-- not the dark brown
toasted one, but the regular golden yellow stuff. Still, you've noticed
what those in the fast food industry have noticed: the higher the oil
is in saturated fat and transfat, the higher the temperature the oil can
get to without smoking or smelling bad.


The higher the temperature can get, the better the fried food tastes.
You're always in a trade-off between taste and health. You can fry in
olive oil, but it smokes at a fairly low temp and doesn't last long.
Animal oils such as beef suet or lard make fried foods taste wonderful,
but they're generally considered less healthy because they're so high in
saturated fats. Tropical oils such as palm or coconut, are high in
saturated fat though they're vegetarian and not hydrogenated.


My compromise is to fry in corn oil when I fry at home and not to worry
about the oil when I eat out. I fry at home almost never, and I eat
fried food in restaurants only infrequently.


But you asked about french toast and pancakes. I don't normally think
of those as being deep fried though I suppose anything is possible.
(Actually, I did have deep fried french toast once, and it was quite
tasty.) French toast and pancakes are normally pan fried in a little
butter at lower temperatures. If you don't care to use butter, almost
any mild oil will do such as corn oil, safflower, canola, etc. Those
are what I use for vegetable sautees as well.


--Lia

The Cook wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:25:40 GMT, Matt >
> wrote:
>
>> I am looking for an oil to use for frying.
>>
>> I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
>> shortenings) because of health concerns.
>
> Check out the Crisco in the green can. It is no hydrogenated and has
> no trans fats.

Are you sure that it's not hydrogenated? I believe you're wrong about
that. Please read the label and tell us what you find. As for having
no trans fat: If it's hydrogenated, it has trans fat despite the label:

http://www.bantransfats.com/newlabeling.html

>
> New Labeling
>
> In July 2003, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") announced that it would require mandatory trans fat labeling effective January 2006.
>
> U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson
> (standing on the right) announces the new trans fat labeling rule in July 2003
> Click on the picture to hear the announcement.
>
> Starting January 1, 2006, all packaged foods must list trans fat content on their Nutrition Facts labels. Here is an example of the new label.
>
> But watch out! There are two major problems with the new label, as noted below.
>
> 1. Under FDA regulations, "if the serving contains less than 0.5 gram [of trans fat], the content, when declared, shall be expressed as zero."
>
> Suppose you eat one serving of Product A, one serving of Product B, and one serving of Product C. Let's assume that each product contains 0.4 grams per serving. You have just consumed 1.2 grams of trans fat, despite the fact that each of the labels claims that the products contain zero grams of trans fat per serving! Click here for an article about the less than 0.5 gram rule.
>
> So be sure to check the ingredients list. If the words "partially hydrogenated" appear in the ingredients, the product contains trans fat. Also note that if the word "shortening" in the ingredient, the product probably contains partially hydrogenated oil which means that it contains trans fat.
>
> 2. Note that there is no percentage for trans fat in the "% Daily Value" column. There is just a blank space. The FDA had previously proposed to put an asterisk in the % Daily Value column with a note that "intake of trans fats should be as low as possible." However, in response to food industry pressure, the warning has been dropped. You should act as if the advisory is on the label. Eat as little trans fat as possible.
>
> The FDA had previously proposed to put an asterisk in the % Daily Value column with a note that "intake of trans fats should be as low as possible." However, in response to food industry pressure, the warning has been dropped.
>
> According to the label, you should eat no more than 20 to 25 grams of saturated fat each day. But what about the daily trans fat limit? That's right, there isn't one. According to the new label, you can eat as much trans fat as you want!
>
> Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson told a news conference on July 9, 2003 that "trans fats are bad fats. The less trans fat you and I eat, the healthier we will be." We wholeheartedly agree with Secretary Thompson. So why no warning on the label?
>
> The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 states that the FDA “shall” require that the declaration of nutrients “be conveyed to the public in a manner which enables the public to readily observe and comprehend such information and to understand its relative significance in the context of a total daily diet.” By omitting the warning, the FDA is violating the statute.
>
> * * * * *
>
> Click here for the very informative FDA webpage on the new labeling.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Edms/transfat.html#whatis
>
> Click here for the FDA page on understanding the Nutrition Facts label.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Edms/foodlab.html
>
> Click here to read the comments that we submitted to the FDA on October 9, 2003 regarding unresolved labeling issues.
http://www.bantransfats.com/fdacomments.html
>
>
> * Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 133, July 11, 2003 at page 41466
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Elrd/fr03711a.html
>
> © 2003-06 BanTransFats.com, Inc.
>

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:25:40 GMT, Matt > wrote:

>I am looking for an oil to use for frying.
>
>I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
>shortenings) because of health concerns.

How about coconut oil? People claim it has health benefits. Here's just one
page on this: http://www.mercola.com/forms/coconut_oil.htm

>The problem is that the liquid oils I have tried start to smoke or smell
>rancid when frying.

According to this page:
http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/Colle...mokePoints.htm
Coconut oil has a smoke point of 350 F, though it would depend on how
refined it is. There are other oils that are higher.

This page: http://missvickie.com/howto/spices/oils.html
Discusses the various oils you can fry with.

Don <www.PaleoFood.com> (e-mail link at page bottoms).

Julia Altshuler wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>> I am looking for an oil to use for frying.
>>
>> I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
>> shortenings) because of health concerns.
>>
>> The problem is that the liquid oils I have tried start to smoke or smell
>> rancid when frying.
>>
>> Specifically I want something for frying french toast or pancakes.
>>
>> Something that won't smoke or smell bad at frying temperatures.
>
>
> When I think of frying at high temperatures in oil, I think of deep
> frying, as in deep frying french fries, or fish and chips, or tempura,
> or fried chicken.

Thanks for your reply. By 'frying' I mean cooking in oil or fat, not
necessarily deep oil. Eg. fried chicken.

transitive verb
1 : to cook in a pan or on a griddle over heat especially with the use
of fat

Okay, what word do people use when preparing french toast? Hopefully
something more specific than 'cook' or 'make' or 'fix'.

The Cook wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:25:40 GMT, Matt >
> wrote:
>
>> I am looking for an oil to use for frying.
>>
>> I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
>> shortenings) because of health concerns.
>
> Check out the Crisco in the green can. It is no hydrogenated and has
> no trans fats.

Here is the key point:

> 1. Under FDA regulations, "if the serving contains less than 0.5 gram [of trans fat], the content, when declared, shall be expressed as zero."

http://www.bantransfats.com/newlabeling.html

"Matt" > wrote:
> The Cook wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:25:40 GMT, Matt >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am looking for an oil to use for frying.
>>>
>>> I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
>>> shortenings) because of health concerns.
>>
>> Check out the Crisco in the green can. It is no hydrogenated and has
>> no trans fats.
>
> Here is the key point:
>
>> 1. Under FDA regulations, "if the serving contains less than 0.5 gram [of
>> trans fat], the content, when declared, shall be expressed as zero."
>
> http://www.bantransfats.com/newlabeling.html

I hate to break the bad news to you, but eventually you are going to die.
Happens to just about everyone as far as I know.

You have to balance the relative risks of various things in your life. You
are probably more likely to die in a car accident going to the store to get
your "not really zero trans fat Crisco" than dieing from using the this
Crisco. Maybe you should not fry to begin with. Not exactly the healthiest
way to prepare food. But you better not bake it either, or you'll die from
eating acrylimides formed from starches in that process. Better eat things
raw, but then you'll die from e. coli or samonella.

I use canola oil when I fry pancakes. I must use a significantly different
technique than you, because I don't run into any issues with smell or
smoking. I use a cast iron griddle over two gas burners on the stove, and
basically use the age old method of heating it until drops of water will
"dance" on the griddle surface to tell when the proper temperature is
reached. I don't see any smoke or detect any bad odors.

I do use shortening to make pie crusts. I switched to Crisco "zero" trans
fat this year from their standard product. Maybe it isn't completely trans
fat free, but it is sure a lot less than the standard product. The results
for this application seem to be identical to what I got before. I guess I
could use an all butter or a lard crust, but those aren't healthy either.
Maybe I should just give up pie? But this peach pie tastes so good!

I'd say go have a good stiff drink and relax... but you'll probably get some
liver problems from that. I guess there's just nothing safe these days.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

wff_ng_7 wrote:

>> Here is the key point:
>>
>>> 1. Under FDA regulations, "if the serving contains less than 0.5 gram [of
>>> trans fat], the content, when declared, shall be expressed as zero."
>> http://www.bantransfats.com/newlabeling.html
>
> I hate to break the bad news to you, but eventually you are going to die.
> Happens to just about everyone as far as I know.

I hope you'll post again when people want to read something sophomoric.

The Cook wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:25:40 GMT, Matt >
> wrote:
>
>> I am looking for an oil to use for frying.
>>
>> I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
>> shortenings) because of health concerns.
>
> Check out the Crisco in the green can. It is no hydrogenated and has
> no trans fats.

It seems that you are probably right about the trans fat, but wrong that
it has no hydrogenated oil. See my reply to Steve Wertz below.

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:49:43 GMT, Matt wrote:
>
>> The Cook wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:25:40 GMT, Matt >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am looking for an oil to use for frying.
>>>>
>>>> I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
>>>> shortenings) because of health concerns.
>>> Check out the Crisco in the green can. It is no hydrogenated and has
>>> no trans fats.
>> Are you sure that it's not hydrogenated? I believe you're wrong about
>> that. Please read the label and tell us what you find. As for having
>> no trans fat: If it's hydrogenated, it has trans fat despite the label
>
> It comes in solid form (sticks and cans) and the web-site
> advertises it a 0-grams trans-fat. So somehow they got it into a
> solid form without giving it trans-fats.
>
> If it were a [partially] hydrogenated product, I can't imagine
> any size serving of it having less than .5 grams trans-fat -
> legally making it trans-fats-free product.
>
> Unfortunately crisco.com isn't too keen on publishing ingredient
> and nutritional information for their products (I wonder why?).
>
> -sw

I found a can of the stuff in the fridge, and the ingredients are (in
order): sunflower, soy, fully-hydrogenated cottonseed, mono- and
di-glycerides.

The cottonseed contributes no trans fat since it is fully rather than
partly hydrogenated. The sunflower and soy contribute no trans fat. I
don't know the definition of the mono- and di-glycerides relative to
whether they are hydrogenated, but those seem to be the only possible
sources of trans fat.

But I expect that the unsaturated components (sunflower and soy), which
are the biggest ingredients, are going to make the smoke point a lot
lower than that of regular Crisco.

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:29:33 GMT, Matt wrote:
>
>> salgud wrote:
>>
>>> This is very new to me. Never heard of "frying" French Toast or
>>> pancakes. Can you describe the process in more detail? I'm having
>>> trouble picturing how you'd do either.
>> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...tionary&va=fry
>> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...fry*1+0&dict=A
>> http://www.onelook.com/?w=fry&ls=a
>
> The amount of oil used for pancakes and french toast doesn't
> qualify for the acceptable use of "fry".

At the link above, Merriam-Webster finds it acceptable. I find it
acceptable. You didn't present a definition of 'fry'.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100...&b tnG=Search

# To cook food (non-submerged) in hot fat or oil over moderate to high
heat. There is very little difference between frying and SAUTEING
although sauteing is often thought of as being faster and using less fat.
www.lowcarbluxury.com/cookingterms.html

So I guess you're wrong, huh?

>
> Sauté would be more appropriate:
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Asaute&btnG=Google+Search>
>
> -sw

Anyway, my french toast is made with dense bread, toasted, then cooled,
then thoroughly soaked in egg/milk and takes five minutes or so and
soaks up about one teaspoon of oil per slice.

In article >,
Matt > wrote:

> Julia Altshuler wrote:
> > Matt wrote:
> >> I am looking for an oil to use for frying.
> >>
> >> I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
> >> shortenings) because of health concerns.
> >>
> >> The problem is that the liquid oils I have tried start to smoke or smell
> >> rancid when frying.
> >>
> >> Specifically I want something for frying french toast or pancakes.
> >>
> >> Something that won't smoke or smell bad at frying temperatures.
> >
> >
> > When I think of frying at high temperatures in oil, I think of deep
> > frying, as in deep frying french fries, or fish and chips, or tempura,
> > or fried chicken.
>
> Thanks for your reply. By 'frying' I mean cooking in oil or fat, not
> necessarily deep oil. Eg. fried chicken.
>
> transitive verb
> 1 : to cook in a pan or on a griddle over heat especially with the use
> of fat
>
> Okay, what word do people use when preparing french toast? Hopefully
> something more specific than 'cook' or 'make' or 'fix'.

For French toast, a little butter in the pan would be fine, but if you
want to go with a healthy alternative, use a cooking spray such as Pam
and a non-stick pan.

Matt wrote:

> # To cook food (non-submerged) in hot fat or oil over moderate to high
> heat. There is very little difference between frying and SAUTEING
> although sauteing is often thought of as being faster and using less fat.


The way the terms are used around these parts, there's a huge difference
between frying and sauteeing. Frying USUALLY (with exceptions pertinent
to this thread) means submerging the item entirely in a lot of fat or
oil. I've called that deep frying.


Sauteeing means cooking the food in a little oil, just enough to make
the food jump around the pan as you stir quickly.


The puzzle is what to call what you do with pancakes or when you cook a
cut of meat in the pan on top of the stove (pork chops, hamburger). I
call that frying too and never thought it would be confusing until I got
to this thread. (I can't help it: I love threads that have to do with
the way words are used and the way words are used in different parts of
the world.) Now I"m thinking that this should be called "pan frying" or
"griddle frying."


> Anyway, my french toast is made with dense bread, toasted, then cooled,
> then thoroughly soaked in egg/milk and takes five minutes or so and
> soaks up about one teaspoon of oil per slice.


My normal french toast recipe consists of taking day-old sliced bread,
dipping it quickly in egg and milk mixture (plus a teaspoon of grand
marnier, a tip I learned on this group that makes a big improvement on
taste) on both sides, then putting it in the hot pan with melted butter.


I worked in a restaurant once where a thicker rough cut slice of bread
was soaked in the egg and milk, then deep fried in the fryolator. The
result was crispy on the outside and a wonderful pudding consistency on
the inside. Quite delightful, but too much trouble and mess to make at
home.


--Lia

"Matt" > wrote:
> wff_ng_7 wrote:
>
>>> Here is the key point:
>>>
>>>> 1. Under FDA regulations, "if the serving contains less than 0.5 gram
>>>> [of
>>>> trans fat], the content, when declared, shall be expressed as zero."
>>> http://www.bantransfats.com/newlabeling.html
>>
>> I hate to break the bad news to you, but eventually you are going to die.
>> Happens to just about everyone as far as I know.
>
> I hope you'll post again when people want to read something sophomoric.

I see you have problems both with assessing risk and with your cooking
technique. Maybe you'll get a reasonable response when you get a better
handle on both.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

Don Wiss wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:25:40 GMT, Matt >
> wrote:
>
>> I am looking for an oil to use for frying.
>>
>> I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
>> shortenings) because of health concerns.
>
> How about coconut oil? People claim it has health benefits. Here's
> just one page on this: http://www.mercola.com/forms/coconut_oil.htm
>
>> The problem is that the liquid oils I have tried start to smoke or
>> smell rancid when frying.
>
> According to this page:
> http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/Colle...mokePoints.htm
> Coconut oil has a smoke point of 350 F, though it would depend on how
> refined it is. There are other oils that are higher.
>
> This page: http://missvickie.com/howto/spices/oils.html
> Discusses the various oils you can fry with.
>
I use coconut oil when possible - healthy; and as an added bonus it smells
real nice while heating up.

Ken.

--
Volunteer your idle computer time for cancer research
http://www.grid.org/services/teams/t...9-D37D5B25B569

My return address is courtesy of Spammotel http://www.spammotel.com/

Matt > wrote:
>Something that won't smoke or smell bad at frying temperatures.

Animal fat.

Hydrogenation is done to turn unsaturated vegetable oil
into saturated grease.

It also creates trans-fats, which are a thing that no
animal would produce.

So try lard, tallow, or poultry fat.

--Blair

The Cook > wrote:
>Check out the Crisco in the green can. It is no hydrogenated and has
>no trans fats.

How do they make it?

--Blair

Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
>The Cook > wrote:
>>Check out the Crisco in the green can. It is no hydrogenated and has
>>no trans fats.
>
>How do they make it?

Okay. I found their website.

Apparently, they make it just like they make their regular
shortening, but they hide the trans fats behind the law.

Note that they don't call it "Crisco No Trans Fat".

They call it "Crisco Zero Grams Fat Per Serving".

The "serving size" is 12 grams.

This means that there can be up to 0.5 grams of trans
fat in the serving, and they can legally say there are
zero grams of trans fat in the serving*.

And 0.5/12 = .042, which means that this stuff may
be 4% trans fat, in addition to being 100% fat.

Plus, "Fully Hydrogenated Palm Oil" in the ingredients
list means it is, indeed, hydrogenated.

Crisco is trying to hornswoggle us.

--Blair

* - actually, it might be up to 0.9g, but I don't remember
how that part goes...given how this government works, I would
not be a bit surprised...

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:02:00 -0400, Julia Altshuler wrote:
>
> > Now I"m thinking that this should be called "pan frying" or
> > "griddle frying."
>
> If you have to narrow it down - pan frying would be the term to
> use. Just calling it "frying" doesn't fit the definition.
>
> Of course 'sautéing pancakes' sounds even sillier, but since we
> were throwing technical definitions around, it was more
> appropriate than "frying".
>
> Most people just say "I made/make pancakes". Frying is what
> you'd do to make donuts or funnel cakes.
>

Some people, including me, say "baking pancakes" because pancakes are
actually little cakes. I cook them on a nonstick electric pan with no
oil or butter, or I cook them on a griddle, which I will wipe with a
paper towel moistened with oil just to ensure the cakes don't stick.
Neither is anywhere close to frying. The OP says he fries French toast
in so much oil that a noticeable amount is absorbed into the food. I'd
say there's a cooking problem there, not a semantic one. -aem

In news Matt > typed:
> I am looking for an oil to use for frying.
>
> I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
> shortenings) because of health concerns.
>
> The problem is that the liquid oils I have tried start to smoke or
> smell
> rancid when frying.
>
> Specifically I want something for frying french toast or pancakes.
>
> Something that won't smoke or smell bad at frying temperatures.
>
> Thanks.

Use lard.

BOB

In article >,
Julia Altshuler > wrote:

> Now I"m thinking that this should be called "pan frying" or
> "griddle frying."

To me, pan frying is covering a black iron skillet with ordinary salt
about one crystal deep with perhaps some black showing through, heating
the pan on high till the salt actually starts to brown (smoking hot) and
adding steak.
For a one inch steak, cook three minutes per side or until the flipped
side starts to sweat for medium. I generally throw the hot skillet and
steak in a four hundred degree oven for four minutes for an inch and a
half filet mignon. Pull out the skillet and transfer the steak to a
plate until you're done making sauce with water (wine?), butter and
mushrooms in the skillet. Perhaps a spice or two of your choosing. Add a
flour water slurry thickener if you wish for pan gravy.
Surprisingly, the meal isn't salty. Well... not very salty. Just right
for anyone I know who's tried it. I also salt and pepper the steak
before they hit the salted pan, but YMMV if you're jumpy about salt.
I only use it for hot fast cooking of beefsteak which will be tender
enough during six minutes of cooking. Forget round steak unless you are
young with excellent teeth.
My idea of pan frying is probably totally different than the majority of
people here.


leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

Matt > wrote:

> I don't want to use hydrogenated oils (notably Crisco and other
> shortenings) because of health concerns.
>
> The problem is that the liquid oils I have tried start to smoke or smell
> rancid when frying.
>
> Specifically I want something for frying french toast or pancakes.
>
> Something that won't smoke or smell bad at frying temperatures.

How about clarified butter instead? It neither smokes nor smells bad at
the temperatures required for pancakes or french toast.

Victor

"Blair P. Houghton" > wrote:
> Okay. I found their website.
>
> Apparently, they make it just like they make their regular
> shortening, but they hide the trans fats behind the law.
>
> Note that they don't call it "Crisco No Trans Fat".
>
> They call it "Crisco Zero Grams Fat Per Serving".
>
> The "serving size" is 12 grams.
>
> This means that there can be up to 0.5 grams of trans
> fat in the serving, and they can legally say there are
> zero grams of trans fat in the serving*.
>
> And 0.5/12 = .042, which means that this stuff may
> be 4% trans fat, in addition to being 100% fat.
>
> Plus, "Fully Hydrogenated Palm Oil" in the ingredients
> list means it is, indeed, hydrogenated.
>
> Crisco is trying to hornswoggle us.

When oil is "fully hydrogenated", it is saturated fat. Hydrogenation adds
hydrogen atoms to available bond sites in the fat molecule, making it more
likely to be solid a room temperature. When partially saturated (or
hydrogenated), the hydrogen can be in a "trans" or a "cis" configuration. In
nature (plants, animals), only the cis form is created. In industrial
processes (hydrogenation), the trans form is created. By the time the fat is
fully hydrogenated (saturated), the distinction between trans and cis is
irrelevant.

I don't doubt there are trace amounts of trans fat in producing fully
hydrogenated oil. Maybe in Crisco it's even up near the 0.5 grams per
serving level. There is really no way of knowing based on the information
that I've seen. I don't know that Crisco is out to fool us. At a minimum,
they've taken the amount of trans fat from 1.5 grams to below 0.5 grams.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

"Steve Wertz" > wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 03:33:00 GMT, wff_ng_7 wrote:
>
>> I see you have problems both with assessing risk and with your cooking
>> technique. Maybe you'll get a reasonable response when you get a better
>> handle on both.
>
> All he's done is poo-poo and get argumentative about every
> followup. I really think he wants the argument more than
> suggestions.

I thought that was the case pretty much from the get-go. He doesn't really
want an answer. When he posted the link
http://www.bantransfats.com/newlabeling.html, that said a lot about where he
was coming from. I looked at that, but also looked at the "about us" link on
that web site (http://www.bantransfats.com/aboutus.html). I wouldn't exactly
call the web site an unbiased source of scientific information... its
founder is a lawyer involved in product liability lawsuits, and was
previously a lobbyist in Washington. I suspect the founder has some motives
beyond consumer health concerns in this web site.

Not that the original poster has any of those motivations... I just think
he's stubborn.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

Matt wrote:
> Steve Wertz wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:29:33 GMT, Matt wrote:
> >
> >> salgud wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is very new to me. Never heard of "frying" French Toast or
> >>> pancakes. Can you describe the process in more detail? I'm having
> >>> trouble picturing how you'd do either.
> >> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...tionary&va=fry
> >> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...fry*1+0&dict=A
> >> http://www.onelook.com/?w=fry&ls=a
> >
> > The amount of oil used for pancakes and french toast doesn't
> > qualify for the acceptable use of "fry".

Neither did you.

>
> At the link above, Merriam-Webster finds it acceptable. I find it
> acceptable. You didn't present a definition of 'fry'.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?num=100...&b tnG=Search
>
> # To cook food (non-submerged) in hot fat or oil over moderate to high
> heat. There is very little difference between frying and SAUTEING
> although sauteing is often thought of as being faster and using less fat.
> www.lowcarbluxury.com/cookingterms.html
>
> So I guess you're wrong, huh?
>
> >
> > Sauté would be more appropriate:
> > <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Asaute&btnG=Google+Search>
> >
> > -sw
>
> Anyway, my french toast is made with dense bread, toasted, then cooled,
> then thoroughly soaked in egg/milk and takes five minutes or so and
> soaks up about one teaspoon of oil per slice.

I've never bothered to look up "fry" because its definition is pretty
obvious if you talk with people who cook. I don't know if Merriam or
Webster cook or not. I do know that in cooking parlance, putting a tiny
bit of oil or grease in a pan to keep whatever you're cooking from
sticking is definitely not considered frying. If it were, then sauteing
veggies in a tablespoon of oil would be frying veggies. I've never
heard of sauteed veggies being called "fried" veggies. There has to be
more oil than that to be considered frying. There is also "deep
frying", where to food is fully immersed in oil. If you wish to stand
by your misuse of the term, that's your priviledge. I understand that
there are people out there who can't comprehend a difference of degree
or figure out how to use words as they are normally used. But you
should expect those of us who can to question your unusual use of
terms.

Have a nice day.

salgud wrote:
If it were, then sauteing
> veggies in a tablespoon of oil would be frying veggies. I've never
> heard of sauteed veggies being called "fried" veggies.


But surely you've heard of "stir-fried" vegetables. I think this is one
of those things where different words are used in different cooking
traditions. One isn't necessarily wrong and the other right.


--Lia

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:49:13 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Julia Altshuler > wrote:
>
>> Now I"m thinking that this should be called "pan frying" or
>> "griddle frying."
>
>To me, pan frying is covering a black iron skillet with ordinary salt
>about one crystal deep with perhaps some black showing through, heating
>the pan on high till the salt actually starts to brown (smoking hot) and
>adding steak.

In some books, I have heard this method referred to as griddling.

Christine

writes:

>I found a can of the stuff in the fridge, and the ingredients are (in
>order): sunflower, soy, fully-hydrogenated cottonseed, mono- and
>di-glycerides.
>
>The cottonseed contributes no trans fat since it is fully rather than
>partly hydrogenated. The sunflower and soy contribute no trans fat. I
>don't know the definition of the mono- and di-glycerides relative to
>whether they are hydrogenated, but those seem to be the only possible
>sources of trans fat.

there ya go - I wonder how long it took them to figure that out

>But I expect that the unsaturated components (sunflower and soy), which
>are the biggest ingredients, are going to make the smoke point a lot
>lower than that of regular Crisco.

a little lower maybe but not much

Julia Altshuler wrote:
> salgud wrote:
> If it were, then sauteing
> > veggies in a tablespoon of oil would be frying veggies. I've never
> > heard of sauteed veggies being called "fried" veggies.
>
>
> But surely you've heard of "stir-fried" vegetables. I think this is one
> of those things where different words are used in different cooking
> traditions. One isn't necessarily wrong and the other right.
>
>
> --Lia

That could be. It might just be a particular "cooking tradition" I'm
not familar with. So please tell me, which "cooking tradition"
considers cooking pancakes and French Toast in a little butter or oil
"frying"?

Julia Altshuler wrote:
> salgud wrote:
> If it were, then sauteing
>> veggies in a tablespoon of oil would be frying veggies. I've never
>> heard of sauteed veggies being called "fried" veggies.
>
>
> But surely you've heard of "stir-fried" vegetables. I think this is one
> of those things where different words are used in different cooking
> traditions. One isn't necessarily wrong and the other right.

Also: fried eggs, home fries, french fries, frying pan, fried fish. At
home, those terms don't imply deep frying.

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 02:29:05 GMT, Matt wrote:
>
>> Steve Wertz wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:29:33 GMT, Matt wrote:
>>>
>>>> salgud wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is very new to me. Never heard of "frying" French Toast or
>>>>> pancakes. Can you describe the process in more detail? I'm having
>>>>> trouble picturing how you'd do either.
>>>> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...tionary&va=fry
>>>> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...fry*1+0&dict=A
>>>> http://www.onelook.com/?w=fry&ls=a
>>> The amount of oil used for pancakes and french toast doesn't
>>> qualify for the acceptable use of "fry".
>> At the link above, Merriam-Webster finds it acceptable. I find it
>> acceptable. You didn't present a definition of 'fry'.
>
> No - you did that.
>
>> http://www.google.com/search?num=100...&b tnG=Search
>>
>> # To cook food (non-submerged) in hot fat or oil over moderate to high
>> heat. There is very little difference between frying and SAUTEING
>> although sauteing is often thought of as being faster and using less fat.
>> www.lowcarbluxury.com/cookingterms.html
>>
>> So I guess you're wrong, huh?
>
> I don't know how you got that impression,

Okay, you don't seem to be too good with reasoning, so I will explain
it. You said I misused the term 'fry', but you presented no definition
of 'fry'. I presented several definitions, all consistent with my
usage. That makes you wrong. Also you made false assumptions about how
I cook french toast. No big deal. Just own up and STFU about it.

wff_ng_7 wrote:
> "Matt" > wrote:
>> wff_ng_7 wrote:
>>
>>>> Here is the key point:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. Under FDA regulations, "if the serving contains less than 0.5 gram
>>>>> [of
>>>>> trans fat], the content, when declared, shall be expressed as zero."
>>>> http://www.bantransfats.com/newlabeling.html
>>> I hate to break the bad news to you, but eventually you are going to die.
>>> Happens to just about everyone as far as I know.
>> I hope you'll post again when people want to read something sophomoric.
>
> I see you have problems both with assessing risk and with your cooking
> technique. Maybe you'll get a reasonable response when you get a better
> handle on both.

Until then, feel free to drop out of the thread.

Matt wrote:
> Julia Altshuler wrote:
> > salgud wrote:
> > If it were, then sauteing
> >> veggies in a tablespoon of oil would be frying veggies. I've never
> >> heard of sauteed veggies being called "fried" veggies.
> >
> >
> > But surely you've heard of "stir-fried" vegetables. I think this is one
> > of those things where different words are used in different cooking
> > traditions. One isn't necessarily wrong and the other right.
>
> Also: fried eggs, home fries, french fries, frying pan, fried fish. At
> home, those terms don't imply deep frying.

I think we can all agree that there is "frying" and "deep frying", and
that sometimes, "deep frying" is referred to as "frying". These kinds
of terms are nebulous at best. OTOH, cooking something in a bit of oil
or grease to keep it from sticking, is not referred to as frying in any
part of the country I've lived in or visited, which is most of the US.
Maybe in some small town in Arkansas...

As far as I can tell, "fried eggs" are a sort of anomaly. "Home Fries"
and "French Fries" are deep fried, and therefore definitely would be
called "fried". Technically, they probably should be called "French
Deep Fries".

Fried is like a lot of common use words - very hard to define. But if
you've lived here all your life, and paid some attention, you know
where it applies and where it doesn't. That's the part that's not in
the dictionary. From the little Spanish I know, it's the same in that
language. That's just a part of using the language correctly. Some of
us care about that kind of thing, called "semantic precision", and
others don't. But us semantically precise types are going to remind
them from time to time!

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
>> The Cook > wrote:
>>> Check out the Crisco in the green can. It is no hydrogenated and has
>>> no trans fats.
>> How do they make it?
>
> Okay. I found their website.
>
> Apparently, they make it just like they make their regular
> shortening,

no

but they hide the trans fats behind the law.

That seems to be false unless:

1) "fully-hydrogenated" is a legal rather than chemical term, or

2) the mono- or di-glycerides are partially hydrogenated.