I have a friend who could be considered one of the geekiest of all food geeks - and I mean that in a good way. He has a sous-vide set up so he can cook food 'under vacuum' at precise temperatures. He has an induction burner in his bedroom, so he can cook without disturbing the people he lives with. And, before trying a new dish, he spends days doing research online, browsing through recipes, then comes up with a version that combines the best techniques.
However, he admitted recently that the one thing he can't cook is rice.
He's not alone. Another friend, who has attended the professional culinary programme at Le Cordon Bleu, in Paris, France, baulked when I asked her to cook rice for a dinner party we were hosting together. She said she couldn't - because she didn't have a rice cooker.
In fact, all one needs is rice, water, a pot and a burner.
Sometimes techniques and ingredients get in the way of basic cooking. In a recent interview, chef Thomas Keller (of the Michelin three-star French Laundry, in Napa Valley, California, and Per Se, in New York) said: 'All cooking is molecular' - and it's true. The physical and chemical transformation of raw ingredients into an edible dish has been going on since man discovered fire. Cavemen didn't have the words or scientific background to explain what happened when heat was applied to food. All they knew was cooked meat was different to raw meat.
I know many home cooks who make excellent braises, stews, stir-fries and steamed dishes, without the benefit of special equipment. When preparing duck confit, they don't put the duck legs and render- ed fat into a vacuum-sealed bag and cook it sous-vide. Instead, they make it the traditional way, by submerging the legs in fat and cooking it below the simmering point for several hours. I also know professional chefs who embrace the 'molecular' trend. Their food is just as good but it's enjoyable in an entirely different way. One isn't better than the other and it is possible for your cooking style to be somewhere in the middle of the two.
