Hacker News Reader

Comment by dingaling | Hacker News Reader

My wife's standard approach to any cake or confectionary recipe is to immediately half the listed quantity of sugar. Apparently this is common amongst pastry-chefs in catering and doesn't appear to affect the final result other than being a bit paler after cooking.

We even made half-sugar doughnuts recently which were still delicious ( no topping or filling needed ).

So I reckon Nestle will just produce a slightly less bulky confectionery, for the same price of course.

View on HN

Me and my girlfriend (we both really, really like cooking) do that with a lot of recipes that involve sugar. It does affect the texture, but I think it often improves the taste.

There are things that ought to be sugary (like thick syrups used for preserving), but most pastries, jams, jellies and deserts in general need surprisingly less sugar than recent cookbooks would imply. Adding just enough sugar to take the edge off of bitterness or sourness ends up being more rewarding than cramming everything full of sugar to the point where all you feel is something odd next to the sweetness.

There are safety concerns when changing any recipe that will be preserved. The sugar in jams and jellies also acts as a preservative after they are opened.

Curious how sugar is a preservative? I would have thought it was food for bacteria.

I believe sugar is a preservative because it's hygroscopic. http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/how-does-sugar-act-preservati...

Osmotic effect on cell walls. Does not matter for chocolate or already dry pastries.

Honey is pretty much nothing but sugar yet absolutely no bacteria can grow in it - there's basically a point where there's too much of it.

Honey also contains a small amount of hydrogen peroxide.

Like salt, it takes up all the water, which bacteria needs.

It's both. The dosage makes the poison.

Honey is an antibacterial and it actually promotes healing.

>"The manuka, jelly bush and pasture honeys are capable of stimulating the monocytes, the precursors of macrophages, to secrete TNF-α..."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3609166/

I'm not the roots and berries type but honey seems to be an amazing compound for medicinal purposes.

This, among other factors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_activity

After opening ought not be an issue because presumably refrigeration is used and the product is consumed before spoilage occurs.

If I understand correctly high sugar contect uncreases the shelf life. Though with in-container pasteurisation and modern preservatives I'm not sure high sugar content is necessary.

We too almost always reduce the sugar in recipes, and also find it usually improves flavor. Though the article says Nestle has made a "scientific breakthrough" so that you get the same level of sweetness with less sugar--so their products may remain overly-sweep goop.

Probably healthier at least, unless their re-engineered sugar has weird side effects like Olestra does. I'll take high sugar over "anal leakage" any day:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra#Side_effects

I really dislike that they stopped making products with olestra. Not everyone got anal leakage.

I'm guessing that the people who did will have a different opinion to you.

Labeling is an option.

True, but I don't think I'd eat a chocolate bar with that warning on the label.

Maybe it was decided that other consumers would probably make the same decision?

That's probably okay; the few who really want non-nutritive oils could still buy them. But the volume might be low enough to force them off supermarket shelves and into specialty stores.

100% agree, a great example of this would be with chocolate chip cookies. If you halve the brown sugar, white sugar, and reduce the chocolate chips by 75%, you end up with a much better tasting cookie. I can't go back to eating full sugar cookies, they're just too sweet.

You can preserve in a very light syrup. For example they sell imported cherries and sour cherries in ethnic stores which have very little sugar in the syrup and they taste great!

I have a Taiwanese friend who says that she always halves the amount of sugar in any western recipe she makes so that it's palatable, since she hasn't grown up eating the over-sweetened garbage food that a lot of Western kids grew up with.

Anyone making food from 'recipes' in the West is likely not eating 'garbage'.

Though we do eat 'too much sugar' - the 'garbage' I suggest is really over-processed, too much hydrogenated oil etc. etc..

Anyone that made their diet out of things 'they cooked themselves' could very well use the recipes as they are and do pretty well. Most dinner dishes do not even call for sugar. Mostly only cakes and what-not. Maybe muffins are a culprit? :)

The entire conversation here is about cakes and pastry. No sensible 'Western' recipe tells you add spoons of sugar to a steak or a mushroom soup.

Have you not tried milk steak with raw jelly beans?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZfCyTpAlg8

Icelander here. We generally do this for American recipes, European recipes are usually not as sweet.

I wish Americans would stop assuming their issues are universal to the West. Excessive sugar in recipes is a specifically American problem. I grew up in Europe, and the difference is huge.

I'm in Europe and my Chinese friends thinks a lot of stuff here is too sweet.

Same in Australia.

Europe is a big place. Ever been to a Monoprix in France? It's not exactly unprocessed wilderness in there.

Thanks! I was wondering the whole thread whats going on. I dislike american food for exact that reason (and over use of fats). Not because i think its unhealthy but because growing up in central europe i am simply not used t these fatty suggary treads.

On the other hand when I was in Japan I found that all their takes on 'western' baking was ridiculously sweet. As in it tasted like they'd used twice the sugar they where supposed to.

Also sugar, like salt and chili are all ingredients where you can adjust how much you need if you don't do it too often.

I.e. if you don't eat a lot of sugar it doesn't take a lot of sugar for you to feel satisfied by the sweetness, and vice versa if you eat a lot you need more and more (which is a huge problem with sugar in alot of food today)

Same thing goes with salt and chili.

And drugs

And Factorio for that matter

Nah, if you don't watch out in the early to middle stages, things can quickly get out of hand...

I remove 75% of the sugar from cookies. It's crazy how little you notice the reduced sugar.

I think it's also one of those things where the less sugar you eat the more pronounced it tasted. Anecdotally, everything in Champaign IL tastes way sweeter after vacationing back home in Palo Alto where we rarely consume corn syrup or excess sweeteners

After having drastically reduced my sugar intake, I can't even stomach most sodas. It's startling how big of a difference it can make.

I'm the same, I can't even touch soda, it's way too sweet.

Orange juice tastes like sickly sweet syrup to me nowadays as well.

Sugar can change the texture greatly of cakes especially. I do the same thing that you do, but it does have an impact on the mouth feel.

When I bake at home I do the same thing. I'm still a bit hit or miss with regard to having things come out with the same texture/feel (how they rise or not, etc.) My basic question is how to compensate for the proportions new proportions.

But overall, the taste is much more palatable because there is much less sugar-shock.

My wife used to work in the hottest pastrie place in our city. The stuff there was totally amazing. It tasted great but not too sweet and it even felt so "light" that you'd always thing "why not have a second, third or fourth piece?"

When she quit she stole the recipes so that we could make this awesome stuff at home. Besides some really cool secret ingredients the only difference between home recipes and "best cake in town" was that the used AT LEAST twice the amount of sugar, eggs and cream than I've ever seen in any recipe.

Edit: As others mentioned. There seems to be a huge difference between Europe and USA. So these are European recipes. ;)

I do this for hot chocolate: double the cocoa powder and half the sugar from what it says on the box. Whisk with whole milk, and enjoy an incredibly rich chocolate flavor.

Putting extra sugar in hot chocolate. That one is actually new to me.

There's a difference between 'instant hot chocolate' powder (which is sweetened), and 'cocoa powder' (typically unsweetened, and quite bitter unless sugar is added).

Ok i would not call that hot chocolate, therefore the confusion. (Freely translated that would be simply called cocoa drink)

I tend to do this with a lot of cocktail books. Dale Degroff, for example, is a great writer but man does he like 'em sweet.

Would this work for cheesecake? I love the texture but hate the excessive sweetness. Maybe this would be a solution.

Yeah, just google for some of the high protein recipes.

I regularly do this with the amount of butter that Kraft thinks mac and cheese requires, often by at least 25%…

In general, I'd recommend against cutting the butter; not only is it delicious, but it also provides a nice dose of cholesterol - gotta keep those androgens high[1]. I'd argue that butter is the only healthy component of mac and cheese, so most people (excepting those with particular dietary needs) might as well keep it in and enjoy increased muscle mass[2] and a leaner body composition[3].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#Biosynthesis

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen#Muscle_mass

3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen#Inhibition_of_fat_dep...

The body produces cholesterol. I've never heard of someone being diagnosed with low cholesterol. Usually it's a good thing.

You're conflating dietary and blood cholesterol, which are completely different things. Eating lots of cholesterol does not give you high blood cholesterol.

I agree. I make 3 boxes at once. The box calls for 1.5 sticks of butter in that case, but I only use 1, and it comes out great.

Had to Google 'sticks of butter', crazy Americans ;)

I also don't understand what Kraft is doing you telling you how to make macaroni cheese... What's in a 'Kraft mac and cheese' box that it still requires making, and yet is also some kind of recipe kit?

It's hardly a complex recipe from 'scratch' (eg http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/8834/bestever-macaroni-ch...).

The box contains dry pasta and dry cheese flavoring. You have to add milk and butter.

I just don't understand the value in that... Swap the "dry cheese flavouring" for a bit of cornflour (or plain) and real cheese, and you have better fresher macaroni cheese with no difficulty increase; probably cheaper too.

'Better' is debatable. If you make it well, it can be quite good. Add extra milk, butter, (and salt if needed). Strain and add these before the noodles are soft, and keep it on the stove until it reduces and softens. It's a completely different experience.

Most people seem to mix that crap in cold and end up with dry, pasty mush.

You're not wrong, but the idea is that it has a longer shelf life, and perhaps more consistency in flavor.

Many American staples are throwbacks to the depression era, where buying a flat of Campbell's soup was a safer bet than buying a bunch of tomatoes and cream. Since then, marketers have capitalized on that sense of consistency, as well as feelings of nostalgia, to ingrain that sort of food into the American psyche.

> Had to Google 'sticks of butter', crazy Americans ;)

Where are you from? sticks of butter are a commonly understood quantity in Australia. Usually that's a safe bet that in other commonwealth countries it's the same.

In the UK butter is sold in 0.25 or 0.5 kg blocks, not sticks. Recipes call for butter by weight rather than volume (unless its tablespoon sized).

I'm in Australia and I don't think I've ever heard of it (except maybe glossing over American recipes online). I've always measured butter in grams. The packaging often has markers so you can roughly estimate to the nearest 50g but that is it as far as I know. If anything I might have assumed it was something approximating these 50g slices.

Not so common in Canada either, it's usually measured in grams.

    > Where are you from?

UK. As sibling commenters say, never seen a recipe asking for a stick, though it often comes with 50g divisions printed on the wrapping.

I don't think the amount of butter matters at all here... You're still eating Kraft mac n' cheese, which is 100% processed... You'd be better off just eating the stick of butter on its own.

I use 25% more butter plus cream instead of milk + fine shredded cheese, heat just enough to melt the butter and beat up with a whisk before mixing up with the noodles.

What if the recipe doubled the required amount of sugar in anticipation of people cutting the amount they add?

It's more likely that a greater amount of people use the recipe as-is, instead of halving. My guess is the recipes aren't playing reverse-psychology with cooks.

Back in 2008 Hershey's had to stop using the term milk chocolate it had to use "chocolate candy" because they started using cheaper ingredients. I guess they'll change again to this weird sugar to save on the formerly cheap ingredients.

http://www.today.com/food/chocoholics-sour-new-hersheys-form...

I used to like Lindt and was disappointed to see they use palm oil in their chocolate instead of cocoa butter. Even worse is palm oil plantations are made by cutting down forests and displacing endangered animal species.

Cocoa butter gives a distinct mouthfeel because it has a sharply-defined melting point. If you want that mouthfeel, you need cocoa butter.

Lindt might not want that mouthfeel. That is a legit choice, not just to be cheap.

Other legit choices include suet, ghee, lard, and even corn oil. It all depends on the mouthfeel you want. Skipping the oil/fat entirely is also an option; wilder choices for holding candy together include: pectin, agar, egg white...

Lind is like the cheap, mass produced and not so tasty variant of swiss chocolate anyway. Still exactly what most tourists are buying ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So what's the good kind?

Depending on where you are it is likely you cant get it or only in specialized shops :/ But a few wider spread brands to look for:

* Camille Bloch

* Munz

* Cailler

And if you ever are in Switzerland make sure to stop by a Läderach

I live in Germany so there's a good selection of chocolate around* :) I'll keep an eye out for these!

* coincidentally, just a few minutes walk from the Rausch factory, where we usually buy our chocolates.

Yeah germany should work :) Really each one really worth it, i am from austria originally and i cant eat anything than swiss chocolate anymore after a few years there.

But given Rausch is absolutely awesome too!

There is a formula to calculate the quality of chocolate. I tried to find it but I wasn't able to find the one I saw a few month ago.

This isn't what I saw before but it's not bad http://expertenough.com/973/chocolate

Heh, kinda like kraft singles being so named because they are no longer allowed to call themselves cheese.

My grandmother, who grew up during the depression, occasionally complained about the decline in the quality of sweets and chocolates. I used to think she was exaggerating a bit, but seeing the decline in quality in my time, going from bad to worse, it's easy to see what she was talking about.

I also recall seeing that someone had placed a large bet on cocoa futures a while back, and I turned up this article to that effect. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/business/global/25chocolat...

Anyways, I just wanted to say that it has been a shame to see large companies move away from making proper chocolate bars just to maintain their bottom line, and I can only expect that this latest maneuver is in the same spirit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com