One thing that sometimes grates on me though, and it's a thing that's become more widespread in the magazine over the past several years, is its focus on streamlining recipes so they are less time and labor intensive. "Everyone loves Minute Rice, but who has time to stand over the stove these days for a full 60 seconds? We wanted to see if we could tweak this venerable classic so it was just as good as the original, but on the table in under 7 seconds."
I have two problems with that.
1. No. Just...no. I subscribe to your stupid magazine because I want to know the BEST way to make something, not the quickest.
2. See #1, above.
Granted, sometimes the tweaks are pretty interesting and - dare I say it - even an improvement on the original. And yes, if you're a working single mom with a mess o' brats who need to be fed quickly when you get home and you balk at the idea of just prying open another crate of Lunchables for them, a 10 minute version of cassolet might be very welcome indeed.
But c'mon. The magazine was originally targeted to people who love to cook. The ones who don't mind spending more than 60 seconds in front of a stove. There are already dozens and dozens of magazines targeting people who need "30 Crock Pot Recipes Ready in Just Five Minutes!". I subscribed to Cooks Illustrated because I have the time, skills, and rabid desire to make the best timpano on the planet. Not one that skips the pasta because it saves 15 minutes of prep time ("you'll never realize it's missing!").
Despite that, I still love CI. They still do plenty of full-bore, no compromise recipes that don't wimp out by bowing at the alter of efficiency. And a lot of their other articles - equipment reviews, taste tests, etc. - are very well done, my questioning their peanut butter acumen aside.
So every once in a while I grit my teeth and stoop to trying one of their Time Saver abominations...er, "improvements".
Last night was one of those times. I broke down and decided to make a batch of their "2 Ingredient No Churn Ice Cream" that I see all the kids raving about these days (http://www.thecomfortofcooking.com/2014/04/amazing-no-churn-ice-cream-6-flavors.html).
I had a bag of fresh cherries, so cherry ice cream it was. (I pitted them and then roasted them on a sheet pan because after I tasted one I was struck by how little flavor it had. I hoped roasting would draw out water and concentrate what little flavor there was. It did help, but only a bit. So I then flambeed them in rye, and added a little fresh bourbon when they cooled. That helped more.)
The recipe is simplicity itself: whip up some cream, and fold it into a can of sweetened condensed milk. Add flavor of choice, chill, and viola! Ice cream. If you watch the "America's Test Kitchen" clip, you can see Chris and one of the tubby regulars gush over how miraculous the results are. The taste! The texture! The convenience!
Um...no. Just...no.
Ok. It does score a bulls eye when it comes to convenience. There's no getting around the fact that folding two ingredients together and freezing it takes less time than making a Crème Anglaise, chilling it overnight, then churning it, then letting it set. If you need a chilled cream confection RIGHT NOW because your husband is coming home with Boss Higgens tonight to discuss the new widget deal and he's expecting an appropriate Donna Reed dessert, this is your recipe.
But if you want ice cream flavored ice cream, it's most definitely not.
Granted, it looks like ice cream. It looks a lot like ice cream. Which is why I think when I tasted it and it wasn't ice cream, it seemed all the more jarring.
Yeah, it's cold. But that's where the similarity to ice cream ends. For one thing, the texture is...well, the texture is tough to describe. It's sorta marshmallow-y if you ask me, but without the initial "bite" through the surface. My wife thinks it's a cross between soft-serve and gelato, although less substantial than either (on the plus side, it is incredibly easy to scoop into perfect spheres).
Finally, the most important factor: flavor.
Ah, the flavor.
Strangely enough, pouring a can of sweetened condensed milk into a bowl of whipped cream did not result in the final product tasting like anything other than a pile of whipped cream that someone had dumped a can of sweetened condensed milk into. There was an overwhelmingly artificial flavor from the canned stuff that could not be masked by the cream, the flambeed roasted cherries, or even the cold. My wife immediately asked me on first tasting it, "Did you sweeten this with Splenda? It tastes like chemicals."
My conclusion, then, is two-fold:
1. No. Just...no. I subscribe to your stupid magazine because I want to know the BEST way to make something, not the quickest.
2. See #1, above.
Make real ice cream. Or keep a pint of Breyer's on hand in case the boss comes over. Just don't be seduced by the Sirens' call of convenience on this one. You'll be dashed on the rocks of disappointment.
(BTW, I suppose I could have just written "Hey guys, I tried the Cook's Illustrated '2-ingredient Ice Cream' last night. It was simple, but the taste and texture doesn't approach the real stuff. I'd give it a pass, unless you're really pressed for time and have to come up with something cold on the spot." But it's a boring day at work and I needed to keep myself both busy and amused for an hour. This did it!)
