5 ms·

> especially eggs Cooking eggs on a stainless pain isn't particularly difficult, you just need to change your technique and use quite a bit more preheating al

> especially eggs 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.

reissbaker 4y ago
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.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
Here is the quote from Jacques Pepin about the utility of non-stick, starts at 1:35, https://www.nytimes.com/video/dining/100000001116746/jacques-pepin-makes-an-omelet-.html https://www.nytimes.com/video/dining/100000001116746/jacques... 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."
bradlys 4y ago
> along with more oil or butter than you traditionally would for a non-stick pan Which means you're trading one health benefit for another.
- version_five 4y ago
  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
- blindriver 4y ago
  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.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    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. However, the jury is still out (rightfully, IMO) on saturated fats, and there is plenty of good science that says to be wary of them (yet, still not as open-and-shut as is often reported in the health media). I think this article gives a good, fair overview: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-about-fats-bad-and-good https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-abo.... It references this meta-analysis, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20071648/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20071648/, that found that saturated fat did not lead to greater heart or cardiovascular disease, but there are some fair criticisms of their methodology, e.g. https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/2/458/4597393 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/2/458/4597393 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.

reissbaker 4y ago

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.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

Here is the quote from Jacques Pepin about the utility of non-stick, starts at 1:35, https://www.nytimes.com/video/dining/100000001116746/jacques-pepin-makes-an-omelet-.html https://www.nytimes.com/video/dining/100000001116746/jacques... 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."

bradlys 4y ago

> along with more oil or butter than you traditionally would for a non-stick pan Which means you're trading one health benefit for another.

version_five 4y ago
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
blindriver 4y ago
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.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  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. However, the jury is still out (rightfully, IMO) on saturated fats, and there is plenty of good science that says to be wary of them (yet, still not as open-and-shut as is often reported in the health media). I think this article gives a good, fair overview: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-about-fats-bad-and-good https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-abo.... It references this meta-analysis, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20071648/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20071648/, that found that saturated fat did not lead to greater heart or cardiovascular disease, but there are some fair criticisms of their methodology, e.g. https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/2/458/4597393 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/2/458/4597393 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.