I've recently read sugar can be used as a cooking medium instead of oils. Its supposed to be more nutritious, preserves the taste better. Can someone please tell me about this? How do I use it as a cooking medium?

Thanks in advance.

CalgryDialBotle wrote:
>
> I've recently read sugar can be used as a cooking medium instead of
> oils. Its supposed to be more nutritious, preserves the taste better.
> Can someone please tell me about this? How do I use it as a cooking
> medium?

I saw a couple years ago a segment on Deutsche Welle
(English-language German television) about molecular
gastronomy which showed a guy experimenting with that.

As far as nutrition goes, forget it. Sugar is empty
calories, just like oil. It's got the highest glycemic
index, of course.

On the plus side, a sugar syrup can reach higher
temperatures than plain water, though not as high
as oil, so you can reach the low end of the range
of frying temperatures. It also is much less of
a fire hazard than oil. Because of its higher
viscosity, it's probably less likely to splatter
but also less easy to get off when it does.

On the minus side, anything fried this way will
be saturated with sugar. Unless it's a dessert,
it's hard to see this being a benefit. Most
savory foods will not be good this way.

I can imagine it becoming a fad among the "state
fair food" genre. After everybody's tried
deep-fried Snicker's bars and the like, deep-fried
in sugar syrup seems like the next logical step.
Sort of like after the third blade was added to
twin-blade shavers, we soon saw 4 and 5 blade
shavers. It wasn't done because it made for a
better shave. It was done because consumers could
imagine it would give a better shave.

In the same vein, consumers don't have to be sold
on the concept of deep frying in sugar syrup.
As soon as they hear about it, they'll want to
try it. (At least, the funnel-cake-eaters will.)
If it's even halfway good, it'll be a success.

Fat-free funnel cakes! That almost sounds
healthful. It gives enough plausible deniability
for 300-lb Michiganders to indulge with a free
conscience, if they need such.

In article >,
Mark Thorson > wrote:

> CalgryDialBotle wrote:
> >
> > I've recently read sugar can be used as a cooking medium instead of
> > oils. Its supposed to be more nutritious, preserves the taste better.
> > Can someone please tell me about this? How do I use it as a cooking
> > medium?
>
> I saw a couple years ago a segment on Deutsche Welle
> (English-language German television) about molecular
> gastronomy which showed a guy experimenting with that.
>
> As far as nutrition goes, forget it. Sugar is empty
> calories, just like oil. It's got the highest glycemic
> index, of course.

Don't have a clue about cooking with sugar syrup. Of course, plain
sugar has nowhere near the highest glycemic index. The "index" for GI
is glucose, which is a type of sugar, often referred to as blood sugar.
As the index, its value is set at 100. Maltose, another type of sugar,
has a GI of 105. Plain sugar, or sucrose, has a GI of 65. The evil
fructose, a type of sugar common in fruits (and a main part of HFCS) is
15. White bread and white rice are 75.

So, white bread and white rice have a higher GI than sugar.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 28/09/2011 8:21 PM, CalgryDialBotle wrote:
> I've recently read sugar can be used as a cooking medium instead of
> oils. Its supposed to be more nutritious, preserves the taste better.
> Can someone please tell me about this? How do I use it as a cooking
> medium?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>

Why would you want to cook using sugar? Are you trying to fast track
diabetes or do you just want to get fat and have a heart attack?

SOOPER-SEEKRET-NINJA wrote:

> Why would you want to cook using sugar? Are you trying to fast track
> diabetes or do you just want to get fat and have a heart attack?

It was for high-temperature poaching without using oil. That seemed clear
enough in what was written. The sugar wouldn't have to be absorbed by the
food, any more than fried food becomes saturated with oil.

Mulling over what might be done using that technique, the main thing I'm
coming up with is a variant of the Indian recipe gulab jamun. You could cook
cheese-dough balls (or cigars, or cubes, or whatever shape you want) in the
sugar syrup. It might even be possible to cook biscotti dough in that way.

The idea is not all that dissimilar from the salt-cooked potato recipes we
see here from time to time, in which potatoes are cooked in a supersaturated
salt brine. The salt serves to raise the boiling temperature of the water so
the potatoes cook more quickly.

Come to think of it, I wonder how well the sugar syrup would work at cooking
cubes of sweet potatoes or plantains.

Bob

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Mark Thorson > wrote:
> >
> > As far as nutrition goes, forget it. Sugar is empty
> > calories, just like oil. It's got the highest glycemic
> > index, of course.
>
> Don't have a clue about cooking with sugar syrup. Of course, plain
> sugar has nowhere near the highest glycemic index. The "index" for GI
> is glucose, which is a type of sugar, often referred to as blood sugar.
> As the index, its value is set at 100. Maltose, another type of sugar,
> has a GI of 105. Plain sugar, or sucrose, has a GI of 65. The evil
> fructose, a type of sugar common in fruits (and a main part of HFCS) is
> 15. White bread and white rice are 75.
>
> So, white bread and white rice have a higher GI than sugar.

Huh! That's interesting. I stand corrected.
The high GI of glucose apparently trumps the
additional reaction step of splitting the glucose
off the sucrose or starch molecule.

You'd think the fructose people would be jumping
all over their low GI, rather than playing stupid
games like this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037855

In article >,
Who_me? > wrote:

> On 28/09/2011 8:21 PM, CalgryDialBotle wrote:
> > I've recently read sugar can be used as a cooking medium instead of
> > oils. Its supposed to be more nutritious, preserves the taste better.
> > Can someone please tell me about this? How do I use it as a cooking
> > medium?
>
> Why would you want to cook using sugar? Are you trying to fast track
> diabetes or do you just want to get fat and have a heart attack?

I'd say it's ********, personally.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

In article >,
Mark Thorson > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Mark Thorson > wrote:
> > >
> > > As far as nutrition goes, forget it. Sugar is empty
> > > calories, just like oil. It's got the highest glycemic
> > > index, of course.
> >
> > Don't have a clue about cooking with sugar syrup. Of course, plain
> > sugar has nowhere near the highest glycemic index. The "index" for GI
> > is glucose, which is a type of sugar, often referred to as blood sugar.
> > As the index, its value is set at 100. Maltose, another type of sugar,
> > has a GI of 105. Plain sugar, or sucrose, has a GI of 65. The evil
> > fructose, a type of sugar common in fruits (and a main part of HFCS) is
> > 15. White bread and white rice are 75.
> >
> > So, white bread and white rice have a higher GI than sugar.
>
> Huh! That's interesting. I stand corrected.
> The high GI of glucose apparently trumps the
> additional reaction step of splitting the glucose
> off the sucrose or starch molecule.
>
> You'd think the fructose people would be jumping
> all over their low GI, rather than playing stupid
> games like this one:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037855

Bearing in mind that the Daily Fail is about as reliable as Fox "News".

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

On 29/09/2011 12:17 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> SOOPER-SEEKRET-NINJA wrote:
>
>> Why would you want to cook using sugar? Are you trying to fast track
>> diabetes or do you just want to get fat and have a heart attack?
>
> It was for high-temperature poaching without using oil.

There is no way that there would not be a large amount of surface
adhesion. It would be like eating a candy apple - which is made in a
similar manner. It would affect both the taste the carb content. My wife
would love such a thing, she has a sweet tooth - I would find it
nauseating and damaging to my BGL.

> That seemed clear
> enough in what was written. The sugar wouldn't have to be absorbed by the
> food, any more than fried food becomes saturated with oil.
>
> Mulling over what might be done using that technique, the main thing I'm
> coming up with is a variant of the Indian recipe gulab jamun. You could cook
> cheese-dough balls (or cigars, or cubes, or whatever shape you want) in the
> sugar syrup. It might even be possible to cook biscotti dough in that way.
>
> The idea is not all that dissimilar from the salt-cooked potato recipes we
> see here from time to time, in which potatoes are cooked in a supersaturated
> salt brine. The salt serves to raise the boiling temperature of the water so
> the potatoes cook more quickly.

Someone should invent a pressure cooker. Oh - yes...

> Come to think of it, I wonder how well the sugar syrup would work at cooking
> cubes of sweet potatoes or plantains.

Good for a dessert. I have seen pears that have been soaked in brandy
and then cooked that way.

>
> Bob
>
>

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:09:17 +1200, Miche > wrote:

> In article >,
> Who_me? > wrote:
>
> > On 28/09/2011 8:21 PM, CalgryDialBotle wrote:
> > > I've recently read sugar can be used as a cooking medium instead of
> > > oils. Its supposed to be more nutritious, preserves the taste better.
> > > Can someone please tell me about this? How do I use it as a cooking
> > > medium?
> >
> > Why would you want to cook using sugar? Are you trying to fast track
> > diabetes or do you just want to get fat and have a heart attack?
>
> I'd say it's ********, personally.
>
I agree, but the troll is working.



--

You are what you eat, so avoid fruitcake and nuts.

Miche wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
> > You'd think the fructose people would be jumping
> > all over their low GI, rather than playing stupid
> > games like this one:
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037855
>
> Bearing in mind that the Daily Fail is about as reliable as Fox "News".

Name another paper that has more reliable or complete
coverage of Tesco, *******s, American female schoolteachers
that have sex with their students, or Suri Cruise. Huh?
Name one!

> There is no way that there would not be a large amount of surface
> adhesion. It would be like eating a candy apple - which is made in a
> similar manner. It would affect both the taste the carb content. My wife
> would love such a thing, she has a sweet tooth - I would find it
> nauseating and damaging to my BGL.

True, for that reason it's not something which should be contemplated by a
diabetic, or even someone who didn't want to eat anything sweet. But that
doesn't mean the idea has no merit at all.

I find myself wondering how choux pastry would react to such treatment,
since French gnocchi are made by poaching choux pastry in water. Do you
suppose it would puff?

Bob

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:26:32 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

> I find myself wondering how choux pastry would react to such treatment,
> since French gnocchi are made by poaching choux pastry in water. Do you
> suppose it would puff?

I had ricotta gnocchi for the first time the other day and they are
amazing! I can't wait to try making some.

--

You are what you eat, so avoid fruitcake and nuts.

On Sep 29, 7:26*pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> > There is no way that there would not be a large amount of surface
> > adhesion. It would be like eating a candy apple - which is made in a
> > similar manner. It would affect both the taste the carb content. My wife
> > would love such a thing, she has a sweet tooth - I would find it
> > nauseating and damaging to my BGL.
>
> True, for that reason it's not something which should be contemplated by a
> diabetic, or even someone who didn't want to eat anything sweet. But that
> doesn't mean the idea has no merit at all.
>
> I find myself wondering how choux pastry would react to such treatment,
> since French gnocchi are made by poaching choux pastry in water. Do you
> suppose it would puff?
>
> Bob

I worked with a gal that poached pears in syrup- think she added a
cinnamon stick and probably another spice. She made tarts out of them
to sell in the bakery we worked in...

On Oct 7, 11:47*am, chizcurlz <chizcurlz.
> wrote:
> I never heard about this.
>
>
> chizcurlz
>
>
It's probably something that is not common in the Philippines and
certainly nothing you'll see on FoodBanter.