Side note: I wish HN would change Wikipedia links to desktop by default. It seems most people post the mobile version. It is a bit annoying, because when you are on mobile, a desktop version gets switched to mobile by wikipedia; but if you are on desktop, you end up with a mobile version which is not optimized for desktop reading.
I filed a ticket with Wikipedia about this exact issue years ago. I get pinged every other year when a new ticket is merged with it. Apparently, some journalist wrote an article years ago about mobile Wikipedia being a better experience on desktop, and now they refuse to do anything about it.
I've seen browser extensions which intentionally change to the mobile URL on desktop. Some people consider it the superior interface.
Ironically the whole thing should be done with CSS, not with different URLs. That's such an old concept. Shows how outdated Mediawiki is. But make sure you donate to Wikipedia today! lol
Hey now, you can do that with mediawiki if you want (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/?useskin=timeless ), for some reasons wikipedia/WMF decided they did not want to. Not mediawiki's fault.
I'm comparing the desktop and mobile links in Chrome on desktop. The mobile link is missing sidebars, some menu items are hidden behind a hamburger icon, and the margins are wider. Perhaps navigation to some other pages would be harder.
But so what? For the purposes of reading an encyclopedia article, it's perfectly readable. The mobile page is better than most desktop web pages out there.
> I only use cast iron or stainless steel and it makes me wonder why I ever bothered with non-stick before.
Because they are incredibly useful when it comes to certain kinds of food, especially eggs and fish.
I find all the "self-congratulatory" posts on the topic of non-stick pans, and demonization of people that use them, of the "thou doth protest too much" quality. Tons of renowned chefs, like Jacques Pepin, have spoken of the benefits of non-stick. There are ways to get closer to the quality of non-stick with other techniques (e.g. a meticulously cared for and seasoned cast iron pan), but it takes a lot more work and is still finicky.
I totally get it if you don't want to use a non-stick pan because of health or environmental concerns (I find there isn't much to be concerned about if you're not using too high heat on the pan), but this pretending that non-stick pans aren't super useful is silly. I'd challenge anyone to make a perfectly light and golden French omelette with, say, just butter on a non-nonstick pan (it can obviously be done, it's just way harder).
I'm a fairly poor cook and I have to say, the "make a French omelette on a cast iron" challenge is just about the easiest challenge I've ever done. Cast iron + butter is incredibly non-sticky (ditto for carbon steel, which has the same seasoning properties but is thinner). I've read online so many times that French omelettes are The Reason to use nonstick pans; I was shocked when I first tried making one on seasoned carbon steel. It just didn't stick at all. I suppose it makes sense, though: how else were French omelettes made prior to the invention of Teflon?
And my first attempt was just on a cheap pre-seasoned Lodge pan and it worked like a dream. It's not particularly finicky and didn't require meticulous labor — the seasoning is way less physically delicate than nonstick coatings.
Lodge is reasonably good and cheap for both cast iron and carbon steel — they're a bit less pretty than the higher-end stuff because they have the pebbly look of unsanded steel, but in practice it doesn't make a huge difference for cooking. Solidteknics pre-seasoned pans are amazing, but pricier, and are a nice hybrid between cast iron and carbon steel (and they're smooth, like vintage cast iron / carbon steel).
In general I would recommend buying pre-seasoned pans — the initial seasoning is the laborious part, but with pre-seasoned pans you just skip all of that. Maintaining seasoning is pretty easy, it's basically just "use the pan" and "don't put the pan in the dishwasher." If it looks like it's getting old or messed up, just wipe a tiny bit of oil on it and cook at high heat.
Personally I also think carbon steel (or Solidteknics "wrought iron") are better than cast iron — they're lighter, heat up faster and more evenly, and they're still pretty durable. But they're a bit more expensive, and they all are similarly not-sticky.
Yeah, agree on both fronts, carbon steel is wonderful.
I wanted to add, regarding cast iron, you can always sand the pan down a bit to smooth out the surface.
On of the biggest benefits to iron or steel cookwear is that you can easily remove and re-apply the non-stick coating. Lodge has the directions on their website. Just make sure you buy pans that have oven safe handles as you bake them repeatedly with a thin layer of oil to build up the seasoning.
We do crepes and eggs on some old lodge ware cast iron skillet.
Behold my l33t level 10 cookware maintenance skillz:
We got it on sale for like $20, new, but then I accidentally left outside for a few years, which created some rust spots.
I fixed it by hitting it with a stainless steel pot scrubber and dawn for about 120 seconds, then put it in the oven at 350F with some canola oil on it for about an hour.
These days, I scrub it with a nylon brush (no soap) or wipe it out with a paper towel.
I've never been able to do a decent crepe or egg in non stick, due to uneven heating.
I threw out all our nonstick stuff after I observed the coating routinely coming off into food.
The exception is for eggs, we have a dedicated pan we only use for them, and although I've just read the other comments here about how easy it is to fry an egg in other pans, I find it goes much better in nonstick. And only frying eggs + using a plastic spatula seems to pretty much eliminate any wear on the coating.
I polished up a lodge cast iron pan to get a smooth finish, seasoned it properly with grape seed oil, and cook with butter. It works so well, it feels like I'm using a non-stick pan.
Not sure why, but using a little butter instead of oil seemed to be the key.
I use butter with either my cast iron or stainless steel frying pans, and my eggs turn out better than they ever did on non-stick. I think simply using butter or olive oil makes cooking easier but also more flavorful.
I cook scrambled eggs in a stainless pan with a decent amount of butter (about 20% butter). It's actually pretty easy to clean. Soak the pan in water for five minutes and use a steel wool brush and everything comes off easily.
Many people recommend seasoning pans by overheating polyunsaturated fats; screw that it also creates a bunch of bad chemicals.
Your number one concern should be health, then taste second. Chefs' obviously have different priorities so don't care what they have to say. Most restaurants produce unhealthy food containing a lot of sugar, processed oils and sodium but that tastes good as that's what customers demand.
Cooking eggs on a stainless pain isn't particularly difficult, you just need to change your technique and use quite a bit more preheating along with more oil or butter than you traditionally would for a non-stick pan. So, it's useful in that sense, but it's not as if we wanted for pan fried eggs before non-stick existed.
Basically, yes, it's certainly possible to get non-stick properties with a well-seasoned, very well-maintained pan. But even someone like Pepin, who has more than enough knowledge and experience to keep a pan in good working order, went the route of "that's too finicky, nonstick is just easier."
Making eggs on stainless steel is definitely more difficult... I'd say it's pretty easy with cast iron or carbon steel though, which were the traditional ways to make eggs pre-nonstick pans.
The low-fat diet myth was dispelled years ago by more rigorous scientific studies. I grew up for decades thinking butter led to heart attacks but that was a criminally bad pseudoscience that people accepted as fact for almost the entire duration of my life, and it makes me angry that I got fooled for so long.
I think the evidence that low-fat diets, popularized by the now infamous food pyramid in the early 90s, were a colossally bad idea is pretty irrefutable these days.
But, in any case, yes, for decades the nutrition experts in this country recommended replacing fats with carbohydrates and that was just horrible advice that wasn't supported by the science.
I posted upstream in favor of nonstick pans, but I will say that oil and butter can be part of a perfectly healthy diet. I'm less sure about fluorocarbons
What is the difficulty with fish and eggs? I ask because I used to use eggs to deglaze my cast iron skillet. Cook something and then when I'm done cook scrambled eggs in it to soak up all the debris. As a plus side the eggs have the flavor of whatever you're cooking.
(To be clear, I'm really interested in what the issue is. This isn't meant to be asking a question as a form of sarcasm.)
There are many egg preparation methods, e.g. a French omelette or over-easy or sunny-side up, where a non-stick surface (and here I mean either a non-stick pan like Teflon or a well-seasoned traditional pan) is essential. Using scrambled eggs to deglaze an iron skillet definitely isn't one of these methods.
It's absolutely not essential for over-easy or sunny-side up (I don't know what a French omelette is). I just use butter or olive oil, and they turn out better now than they ever did without burning or sticking.
I watched your video you linked to, and all that Jacques Pepin said was that it was easier to use a non-stick pan. But he didn't say it was essential at all. He just said it was easier, which I think we can all agree upon.
> Because in the early 2000s there was a war on natural fats.
Non-stick was popular well before the early 2000s, its popularity is not due to any “war on natural fats” that occurred at that time. (And the early ’00s is late for that, anyway.)
Non-stick is (and has been for a long time) most popular for particular forms of cooking that use natural fats, whereas particular steel designs (sometimes referred to as “waterless” because of their properties in other applications) were specifically promoted (including in the early 2000s, though they were around before and remain on the market now) as eliminating the need to use fats as one would with conventional and non-stick cookware.
> in the early 2000s there was a war on natural fats. Nutritionists declared all fat bad. We now know that to not be the case.
Saturated fats were and remain to be generally thought unhealthy (if we say things like 'all' or 'always', we're almost certainly spreading misinformation; the world doesn't work that way). Other fats (polyunsaturates and monounsaturates) are believed to be healthy or neutral. There is ongoing uncertainty and debate; the degrees and nuances change; we don't get sure, hyperbolic answers.
I'm not a grammar and spelling critic, but I'm going to be a style critic here (sorry to the parent; lots of people write this way): Hyperbole commonly leads to misinformation. 'War', 'all fat', 'nutritionists declared', 'bad' etc. divert us to an emotional, adversarial contest with a strawperson enemy, rather than into the pursuit of truth, whose object is always nuanced and whose pursuit is difficult enough as it is.
"A war on all fats" is a pretty good summary of a lot of popular nutritional messaging in the '90s though. Low fat or fat free was a big selling point on lots of food packaging, even when it didn't make sense. Magazine articles about how you could cut just a bit more fat out of this or that recipe. I'm 100% in agreement that the reality is more nuanced, including that dietary fats, some more than others, can be harmful to health when consumed in excess. In other words, that it's not just the other extreme from that 90s consensus. I think the GP would agree too (the only hyperbole in their post was a statement attributed to nutritionists of the time). But the war on fat was real, and had a big presence in the culture.
No, it's pushing hyperbole. It tells the world your emotional position - you think it was a war. Let's try something more factual, that reveals the underlying issues - if we know the facts.
Low fat and fat free is still a big selling point. Look at the NYT article on the FDA's plans, for example.
The first paragraph of the introduction, in case you don't have access:
> Since medical research first established a potential link between dietary fat intake, obesity, and cardiovascular disease [1], multiple components of the public health continuum have waged war on dietary fat. That war has generally been successful, not necessarily at preventing obesity or heart disease but at convincing Americans that dietary fat is bad for us.
It doesn't read as if they're describing their own position, emotional or not. It's a characterization of the public messaging surrounding dietary fat.
Low fat and fat free is still a big selling point
Yes, that's mainly because of aforementioned public messaging.
For stainless, I've found it to be a combination of making sure there's enough heat before adding food, being OK with using a bit more fat (e.g., oil, butter) than I initially expect, using the right utensil while cooking, and deglazing as necessary.
I use stainless for acidic foods (e.g. tomato sauces) and frying eggs. I use cast iron for pancakes, meats, and other items that benefit from the pan not being a perfectly flat texture or heat retention.
If I had to have a single pan, I’d probably go high carbon steel.
The trick is get the pan hot (not smoking hot, you’ve preheated too much), then put 1-2tbsp butter or cooking oil in the pan and spread it around. It should sizzle a bit and then mostly disappear, leaving behind a nonstick coating.
> They weren’t completely wrong about fats, we just know there’s a difference between saturated fats and unsaturated fats now.
We knew that in the early 2000s, too. And in the early 1990s, which is more when when the war on fats was actually happening; by the early ’00s, the diet trend had focused on low-carb diets, reversing the war on fats.
Good point. You can find research that links saturated fat to increased blood cholesterol back in the 1950s.
Perhaps it's only a reminder how much the zeitgeist may be divorced from science, or how little impact the latter actually has on the former unless it's convenient. Though that's for another discussion.
Do you know the chemical composition of your pan’s seasoning? There are a decent number of carcinogenic compounds (for example acrylamide) produced just by heating natural foods.
I don't season my frying pans at all. I hand-scrub it clean with SOS pads every time. I don't believe in seasoning the pans and just use butter or olive oil every time. I'm not a Michelin star chef, so to me it doesn't matter, but for example my kids really love my pork chops that I make on the $20 cast iron Lodge pan, so that's good enough for me!
I'd never heard of scotch pancakes, but they look like what we make in north america. I use a cast iron griddle and the swipe of a lightly oiled rag. The trick is to get the griddle to exactly the right temperature before making your pancakes, using drops of batter to make "test pancakes." The drop should be big enough to get a few bubbles; when the bubbles stop closing in on themselves, the bottom should be a perfect golden brown. It can take several minutes of fidgeting before you dial it in, but if you're cooking with cast iron, that's the whole lesson: over-temperature burns and sticks, under-temperature sticks and burns.
I grew up in the area during the worst of the dumping. It destroyed basically all of my baby teeth and created cavities in a couple of adult teeth that no dentist has ever seen before. None of us at the time understood why it was happening. I had so many teeth basically just crumble that I had steel caps on one with a spacer where another was missing. Both my parents assumed it was something I was doing/poor care when I was at the other one's house. Turns out it was the goddamn water supply.
My stepdad actually worked at the plant long enough to retire from there too. I think he had mesothelioma from asbestos, or god knows what from the plant.
I was gifted a nice Our Place pan set for Christmas which uses Ceramic nonstick [0]. Ceramic nonstick doesn’t use PFOAs or PTFEs so some people think it’s safe.
From Our Place’s FAQ [1]:
> our Always Pan uses a sol-gel non-stick coating that is made primarily from silicon dioxide which is known in the cookware industry as "ceramic non-stick." It's tested not only to the standards of a ceramic coating (meaning no heavy metals are able to pass through the coating) but also tested to the standards of a polymeric coating (which means that absolutely nothing can pass through the coating).
They seem to be refuting that things can pass through the coating, but isn’t the concern more around the coating itself leaching into the food? And the claims around impermeability of the coating go out the window once it wears down too, right?
I’d love to believe that these pans are safe. But is it just wishful thinking until more extensive testing has been done?
I'm reasonably sure non-stick ceramic pans are unsafe. They are certainly disposable, and misleadingly marketed. Also, the stuff under the coating should be cookware grade iron. It is fine if that leaches through. Why are they concerned about heavy metals leaching through? Is manufacturing leading to lead contamination or something?!?
There is an older technology that involves coating cast iron with actual ceramic. It is non-stick "enough", lasts generations and is safe. Example (high end) manufacturer:
Sadly it seems to be everywhere. It even lines the inside of microwave popcorn bags. It also lines the inside of disposable fast food containers very often. I haven't watched the movie you mentioned so I don't know if you know this stuff already.
probably neither any kind of fiction, nor any kind of movies, but least of all fictional movies, are a good source for information about scientific facts, toxicology, or risk assessment
It is a dramatization of a real story, one that happened to be testified to in congress not long before the movie came out. Please take people in good faith.
i don't think the grandparent poster is posting in bad faith, i just think they're getting their information about that real story from an intentionally unreliable source
movies lie to you on purpose to manipulate your emotions
there are lots of reliable information sources about pollution risks, like mmwr, the cochrane collaboration, msds, toxicology textbooks, wikipedia, epa assessments, and so on
there is no need to make yourself dumber by making life decisions contingent on beliefs you acquired from movies
i am not going to subject myself to hours of manipulative propaganda for which truth is not even a consideration in order to write a 'rebuttal' nobody wants to read, thus implicitly affirming all the errors that i missed or that didn't seem important enough to mention
dramatizations are works of fiction
literally everything in them is false with the occasional exception
every word, every facial expression, every event, every chemical reaction, every purchase, every article of clothing, every motivation
the exceptions where they say something objectively true are enumerable; the falsehoods are not
don't base your beliefs or life decisions on fiction
finding out what is true and making good choices are hard enough without deliberately sabotaging the process
I think it's a perfectly reasonable response to your assertion that "movies lie to you on purpose to manipulate your emotions" in order to defend the GP comment.
If that's a ridiculous question, it's only because your assertion was equally ridiculous given the context of the thread.
Threw all non-stick pans away and learnt how to cook with just cast iron or inox pans.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)