Flour vs. cornstarch?
 

If, as I'm assuming, cornstarch is more fattening, is it still somehow better than flour to use in, say, chocolate pudding? Why?


Lenona.

Flour vs. cornstarch?
 

On 4/9/2014 7:03 PM, wrote:
> If, as I'm assuming, cornstarch is more fattening, is it still somehow better than flour to use in, say, chocolate pudding? Why?
>
>
> Lenona.
>

I think that cornstarch makes for a more transparent product. I think
it's also more potent as a thickener, per volume.

I don't know this for a fact, but I was told that cornstarch does not
need to be cooked after it thickens, whereas flour does, to make it
digestible.

Flour vs. cornstarch?
 

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 7:10:00 PM UTC-4, Travis McGee wrote:
>
> I don't know this for a fact, but I was told that cornstarch does not
>
> need to be cooked after it thickens, whereas flour does, to make it
>
> digestible.


Well, in the eggless chocolate pudding recipe that I always use (with cornstarch), it says that once the pudding has thickened, you're supposed to cook it for another 15 minutes to get rid of any chalky taste.

BTW, once it's done, one can put a small amount of that pudding in the freezer, in a bowl, for two hours - by then, it's not quite hard and it's about as good as ice cream. (I never understand why almost all ice-cream recipes call for an ice-cream maker!)


Lenona.

Flour vs. cornstarch?
 

On 4/9/2014 7:33 PM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 7:10:00 PM UTC-4, Travis McGee wrote:
>>
>> I don't know this for a fact, but I was told that cornstarch does not
>>
>> need to be cooked after it thickens, whereas flour does, to make it
>>
>> digestible.
>
>
> Well, in the eggless chocolate pudding recipe that I always use (with cornstarch), it says that once the pudding has thickened, you're supposed to cook it for another 15 minutes to get rid of any chalky taste.
>
> BTW, once it's done, one can put a small amount of that pudding in the freezer, in a bowl, for two hours - by then, it's not quite hard and it's about as good as ice cream. (I never understand why almost all ice-cream recipes call for an ice-cream maker!)
>
>
> Lenona.
>

I think it was Mom who told me about the difference, so it was a long
time ago from a cook from another era. However, I did just find this:
http://www.cheftalk.com/t/15684/flour-vs-cornstarch

The "ice cream" idea sounds good, although I am not partial to
chocolate. I may try it with vanilla pudding, though.

Flour vs. cornstarch?
 

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 7:50:51 PM UTC-4, Travis McGee wrote:
>
> http://www.cheftalk.com/t/15684/flour-vs-cornstarch
>

Thanks for the link!

Flour vs. cornstarch?
 

On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 16:33:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
>
> Well, in the eggless chocolate pudding recipe that I always use (with cornstarch), it says that once the pudding has thickened, you're supposed to cook it for another 15 minutes to get rid of any chalky taste.
>
Cook cornstarch too long and it will break down and 15 minutes seems
too long to me. Here's a chocolate pudding recipe by a cornstarch
company and it says to cook for one minute, which makes more sense to
me. http://www.argostarch.com/recipe_details.asp?id=386

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila

Flour vs. cornstarch?
 

> wrote in message
...
> If, as I'm assuming, cornstarch is more fattening, is it still somehow
> better than flour to use in, say, chocolate pudding? Why?
>
Not sure it's more fattening but you wouldn't want the taste of flour in a
chocolate pudding! Flour is better for things like gravy, IMO that you
might reheat. Cornstarch can break down when you reheat.

Flour vs. cornstarch?
 

> wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 7:10:00 PM UTC-4, Travis McGee wrote:
>
> I don't know this for a fact, but I was told that cornstarch does not
>
> need to be cooked after it thickens, whereas flour does, to make it
>
> digestible.


Well, in the eggless chocolate pudding recipe that I always use (with
cornstarch), it says that once the pudding has thickened, you're supposed to
cook it for another 15 minutes to get rid of any chalky taste.

BTW, once it's done, one can put a small amount of that pudding in the
freezer, in a bowl, for two hours - by then, it's not quite hard and it's
about as good as ice cream. (I never understand why almost all ice-cream
recipes call for an ice-cream maker!)


Lenona.

---

The ice cream maker incorporates air. You can do the same with a blender
but it's very time consuming and you can only do a small amount at a time.
Freeze your mix in ice cube trays. When frozen, put in the blender. Put
back in the ice cube trays and refreeze. Do this 2 or 3 times.

Flour vs. cornstarch?
 

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 16:33:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, in the eggless chocolate pudding recipe that I always use (with
>> cornstarch), it says that once the pudding has thickened, you're supposed
>> to cook it for another 15 minutes to get rid of any chalky taste.
>>
> Cook cornstarch too long and it will break down and 15 minutes seems
> too long to me. Here's a chocolate pudding recipe by a cornstarch
> company and it says to cook for one minute, which makes more sense to
> me. http://www.argostarch.com/recipe_details.asp?id=386
>
I used to make it in the microwave. Only took a few minutes.