I've been doing a lot of vegan baking lately (I'm vegetarian, with vegan tendencies, but my girlfriend is strictly vegan). I tried vegan baking in the distant past, and was always disappointed, but the Internet has made it really easy to find good, proven, recipes and a lot more information about the science and behavior of foods when prepared in various ways.
I've been pleasantly surprised by how well my coconut oil-based cookies and biscuits come out. My current biscuit recipe (http://foodcite.org/recipe/amazing-vegan-southern-buttermilk... ) is as good as any I have ever made...and I'm from the south. I know biscuits, and have made and eaten a lot of biscuits in my life. Cakes and brownies are another story, thus far, and it's not the butter that's the problem ingredient; eggs are where the problems come in.
I'm really impressed with their experimental approach. I've done the same experiments with curdling non-dairy milks (to replace buttermilk in biscuits), and have done several experiments blending various oils and additional ingredients to replicate butter. Because I'm lazy I ended up simplifying back down to very easy to prepare ingredients, because if there are too many steps or ingredients, I end up cooking something simpler. But, in this case I could probably make myself mix up a big batch of this for the freezer.
I'm surprised at this. I'm not a vegan at all, and i find most of the time when i end up eating vegan variants of dishes that aren't normally vegan they're pretty terrible, but i've had some truly excellent vegan chocolate cakes and brownies. I don't know what the recipe was, but it's certainly possible to make a really good vegan chocolate cake.
Yes, my favorite chocolate cake ever was vegan (from The Green Planet in Houston, an incredible but now defunct vegan restaurant). But, I've never been able to make one that good. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that I haven't gotten it right yet.
Brownies, on the other hand, are a nightmare to veganize, for me. It may have to do with the kind of brownies I like, and it may just be that I've had enough bad luck that now my baking mojo is broken for making brownies. I've tried three batches in pretty quick succession, using quite different seeming recipes, and they all turned out awful; and awful in roughly the same way in all cases. Kinda like overly oily fudge, with some flour mixed in just to make it even more gross. I'm not sure, honestly. I've not tried it again lately, but will eventually. I love a good brownie. But, I was so disheartened by the first several attempts, that I've been avoiding it.
And, I can't think of a really good vegan brownie that I've ever eaten, and I know some quite good vegan cooks, and tend to frequent vegan restaurants and bakeries while traveling.
That wouldn't surprise me, and I do frequently add vinegar to my almond milk when baking to make it more like a buttermilk, even if the recipe doesn't call for it. The additional acidity when adding vinegar to a recipe that uses baking soda or baking powder can replace some of the effect of using sour cream (a very common "secret ingredient" in non-vegan chocolate cakes), which provides more leavening. It probably also alters the flavor in some way, though there are so many other competing and strong flavors, and the vinegar is such a small amount, that it probably doesn't do too much.
I don't think I've used vinegar in my chocolate cake attempts, however, so it's probably something I'll try next time.
You just told a vegetarian, who is tending towards veganism, to use blood instead of butter. Or did you mean his own blood? (which I guess would be okay for some vegans)
I would have never thought of that. I would have no ethical compunction against using my own blood for cooking. But, I really don't miss eggs in my baking that much. And, I'm not sure my guests at dinner would be enthused to learn that the food their eating contains human blood. I'll have to ask some vegan friends what they would think of foods made with human blood from a voluntary donor. That's sure to make me the life of the party.
For anyone (like me) who raised an eyebrow at the "trans fats are highly toxic" bit, wiki helpfully mentions some recent (2013) FDA guidance on the matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat
To me the word wiki refers either to the original wiki at c2.com[1] by Ward Cunningham or the kind of organically grown community around a user editable website.
Do not let the word wiki in its name and the content being provided by users through a wiki engine fool you, wikipedia is not a wiki (for a variety of reasons) but this is a common misconception.
Let's just say that if openstreetmap had been called wikistreetmap and used a wiki engine, it would still be "a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license." and not a wiki.
So yes using wiki as a shorthand to refer to wikipedia is not only confusing but also wrong.
-edit-
meatball[2] is a wiki, consumerium[3] is a wiki
everything2[4] is not a wiki[5] and everything2 not being wikipedia[6] doesn't make wikipedia a wiki.
Wikipedia is estimated to be the sixth most-visited web site in the world, and is the only site in the top that is commonly referred to by the word "wiki".
You are free to complain about or dislike that, and to want people to broaden their horizons if they think of it as the wiki or as the default thing that "wiki" refers to, but you are not free to claim that most people, when they say "wiki" as a shorthand for a site, actually mean some other site, or that some other site which could be called "wiki" is more likely to be meant.
It does cause confusion. I use multiple wikis that are not Wikipedia on a daily basis. When someone just says "wiki", my first thought is that the sentence is not grammatically correct; it is like saying "encyclopedia says" or "book says", it's not grammatical without an article or other qualifier of which one you are talking about. My next thought is that they are referring to the original wiki, http://c2.com/cgi/wiki.
I have seen this usage become increasingly common, but I try to discourage it when I see it, because it does cause confusion, and if it catches on, could cause even more when trying to discuss other wikis as people may assume that you are talking about other Wikipedia affiliated sites, not other instances of the general category of wikis.
I'm honestly surprised there are people on Hacker News who hadn't yet gotten the message about trans fats. Trans fats are really, really bad. Far worse than the saturated fats they're attempting to replace.
In terms of sustainability, coconut oil is not necessarily better than palm oil. It is probably worse since it has lower yield per hectare and more energy (drying + pressing) per liter output.
I really like the science in his write ups, there's obviously a lot of science in baking but so many write ups focus on story building and act as if there is some magic behind the steps or ingredients that obfuscates their true purpose.
Mattie also has another site (foodcraftlab.com) that has even more involved recipes, including a good read about cream cheese, I love the idea of, though I'll likely never find the time to make: http://www.foodcraftlab.com/food/fermentation/vegan-cashew-c... .
Saying that as someone who was vegan for five years and who is presently on a high-fat, low-carb diet, by the way. I don't come here for stuff like this.
If you're referring to breast cancer, the evidence is sketchy, and both the Canadian and American Cancer Societies conclude that it's safe (with some studies suggesting that it might help, as well as a french-paradox type thing going on in Japan).
There have been other cancer-related concerns, but most of the studies have been very small and seem to conclude that there's either no risk, or that there are actually benefits.
The dairy industry is a huge advertising and lobbying machine.
What I find particularly troubling is that people avoid soy because of non-existent evidence. But they continue to drink alcohol which has been thoroughly linked to many forms of cancers. It makes me believe that, in the final analysis, people eat what they want and only pay lip service to healt (or the environment/sustainability/animal welfare); which I'd say that things like Atkins and paleo further confirms.
I was actually thinking of the studies that show soy products may cause harmful reductions in testosterone in men. I wouldn't say the data is overwhelming at present, but there is concern. The soy industry isn't exactly a feather weight when it comes to promoting its products either.
The reason I mentioned this is because this article went to significant effort to make margerine sound horrible for your health when the concerns about margerine aren't any more convincing than those about soy. Additionally, the "vegan butter" recipe is based on the same oils as are used in margerines anyways. When it comes to health, how do the chemical reactions done in the article compare to those performed when creating margerine? I have no idea. Just because a chemical reaction has not been performed on an industrial scale does not mean it produces healthier results.
The conflicts people get into about food are sometimes ridiculous in their intensity. Butter vs margerine is almost a religious issue! One thing that is truly ridiculous is how people can go on a pure magic-vegan-voodoo-uber-healthy diet and wind up horribly unhealthy because they're simply eating too much. Perhaps this vegan butter is far better for pie crusts than most margerines, but that doesn't change the fact that pie isn't terribly healthy regardless of what it's made of.
I'm on a vegan diet for health reasons. I can't eat meat or dairy without a lot of pain. I also can't have alcohol, carbonated beverages, or a number of fruits and vegetables. I arrived at the diet with the help of a GI specialist and a nutritionist. Even on the diet, I still take a fair amount of painkillers every day (mostly non-narcotic, but all by prescription).
I don't eat pie except on a few special occasions (e.g., birthdays and Christmas). I do make my own bread and muffins (mixed berry) so I know what's exactly in them. A recipe like this is good for someone like me as I'll know what's in it.
Assuming that someone goes on a vegan diet and ends up unhealthy because of it is a bit much. I know I'm not the healthiest, but it's because I don't get enough exercise largely due to a number of chronic medical conditions.
> Assuming that someone goes on a vegan diet and ends up unhealthy because of it is a bit much.
There are a number of people that tout themselves as ex-vegans because they went vegan, (probably) didn't eat a well-balanced enough diet, went to their doctor (who said "LOL just eat meat silly!"), got better, and then become staunch anti-vegans.
I think this happens because people try to just cut out non-vegan things from their current diet, and think that their work is done.
Since I was switching diets for health reasons I luckily had the advice of a nutritionist, who was excellent. She helped me a lot.
I recall watching a talk (I think it was a TED talk) where it was suggested that one goes vegetarian for a day or two a week. I think the idea was to help the environment by eating less meat (it's been a while since I watched it).
YMMV, but I eat low-carb (I wouldn't call it either paleo or Atkins) because it's the most effective way I've discovered for me to lose weight. I do it 'cause it's the only thing that doesn't make me hungry and makes me lose weight.
You would need to have an increasing level of soy consumption in Japan for that to make sense as a suggested causal relationship.
Simply "they eat a lot of soy" and "their birth rate is declining" doesn't imply any kind of causation, if they were eating the same amount before it started declining.
as a vegan, I hate stuff like this. I'm vegan for my health. I see nothing but insanity in recreating high-fat foods from different materials, so that I can keep the obesity but get rid of the good taste.
Sorry to disappoint you but obesity is caused primary by overeating.
I lost 2 kg since starting baking pies myself. And I am using pate sablee, lots of heavy cream for the custards, dozens of yolks and so on. You just need to eat smaller sizes of the finished product. My roommate put on couple of pounds though.
Wide availability of food, food that has been engineered to be addictive, insane amounts of fast carbs consumed, overall decline in physical activity and decline of home cooking, with recent research showing fucked up gut flora entering the mix.
Good article, although his use of the word "chemicals" as a negative is pretty silly. Particularly, in this sentence "Fermentation and curdling involve hundreds of chemical reactions that produce a multitude of complex flavor compounds with a depth that can't be replicated by chemicals."
Given that the paragraph you've quoted from is followed with a description of how acids denature proteins, I think the author probably understands that all the other stuff he's working with are "chemicals" too.
However, I think this works as a reasonable shorthand for non-specific synthetic food additives in this context. Laypeople like myself understand that butter substitutes include artificial flavors to attempt to recreate some of the flavor of butter, but they fall short. The author can favorably compare his curdling approach to the fake butter flavors of those familiar commercially available products without stopping to specify them, because it doesn't matter which specific chemical additives he's comparing to. If he instead said " ... a depth of flavor that can't be replicated by adding acetoin or diacetyl" (which wikipedia says are the common fake butter additives) what would that really add for his readers?
Well, obviously chemicals can't replicate the chemicals produced by the chemical reactions among the chemicals in butter. I don't see what's so hard to understand about it.
I am stupid, of course, but what is the point in switching from dairy fat sources for a mammal species who breastfeed their offsprings?
I, probably, know the answer - "look, I am sophisticated vegan hipster!"
Another point is, of course, evolutionary biology - what were our traditional sources of nourishment? For a hunting-gathering tribes? Hunting and domestication of animals were, certainly, adaptations, which allowed a tribe to survive and rise more healthy children in harsh and quickly changing conditions.
This is why Tibetans or Mongolians are still using dairy butter as the main source of nourishment. We, probably, should enlighten them about veganism to eliminate their deep ignorance about using dairy butter.
Why? Moral vegetarians is a quite different topic, and there is an answer for this too. Current rates of population growth are unsustainable without animal food sources. So, the price would be lives of children and weak adults of poorest communities.
Most people I know who are moral vegetarians do not demand that the rest of the world be as well. They simply object to eating the flesh of animals themselves, or (for the vegans) eating any products derived from animals which did not consent.
You do also realize that another solution for unsustainable levels of population growth is to curb population growth, by better access to and encouragement to use birth control, right?
These topics are subtle and the current fashions among some social classes in some regions of the world cannot be considered as something more than mere fashions.
For example, that "obvious and easily observable health benefits of being vegan" are related to the avoidance of processed foods and heavily unbalanced diet, rather than avoidance of "animal flesh" or dairy products themselves. This is just the confirmation bias and similar factors at play.
Those, who have studied human physiology, not just cellular metabolism, which is also important, could tell that the problem is too complex to be dealt with by silly slogans like "avoid red meat". There are many subtle ratios involved, not just an ability of a particular enzymes to convert a particular molecular structure into molecules involved in the metabolism and support of the homeostasis, but the ratios among these processes. The balance is what is important. In other words, "substituting the protein sources", is not that simple as it seems.
There is no scientifically proven reasons to avoid dairy products, except for individual cases of lactose intolerance, while there is a consensus that the food industry is the cause of the problem to which veganism seemed to be a solution.
Tribal eating habits is a quite interesting topic, btw.
As for birth control, this is quite another topic, which, perhaps, cannot be discussed in this context. For some members of so-called "urban-middle-class" in some region of the world the policies of forced birth control are acceptable, while in other societies there are quite different reasons about how many children should a family have and why. And, of course, it is not for some "vegans" to decide what other people in other regions of the world should do.
Source? I believe that animal food sources are a vastly less efficient use of land and resources than plant food sources--the whole "20 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef" thing. Certainly nutrients can be in short supply in a meat-free diet, but it's easy enough to get them from vegetable sources and add supplements.
The ironic thing - the lactose tolerance mutation is one of the most important survival mechanisms for humanity. So humanity survived because we were able to drink and eat milk, cheese and cream and butter.
As far as I know, there are some enzymes, synthesis of which could be triggered by presence of lactic sugars, so a cell could convert them into ATPs, and those enzymes are encoded in the DNA.
My bet is that they are "switched off" after the period of breastfeeding is passed, but could be "re-activated", and this ability to reactivate them is the survival factor.
I've been pleasantly surprised by how well my coconut oil-based cookies and biscuits come out. My current biscuit recipe (http://foodcite.org/recipe/amazing-vegan-southern-buttermilk... ) is as good as any I have ever made...and I'm from the south. I know biscuits, and have made and eaten a lot of biscuits in my life. Cakes and brownies are another story, thus far, and it's not the butter that's the problem ingredient; eggs are where the problems come in.
I'm really impressed with their experimental approach. I've done the same experiments with curdling non-dairy milks (to replace buttermilk in biscuits), and have done several experiments blending various oils and additional ingredients to replicate butter. Because I'm lazy I ended up simplifying back down to very easy to prepare ingredients, because if there are too many steps or ingredients, I end up cooking something simpler. But, in this case I could probably make myself mix up a big batch of this for the freezer.