# Waterless Cookingware



## wingfanjim

Hi, 

I'm brand new to the forum. I actually discovered this site due to me looking up information on "waterless cookingware". Yesterday, my fiancee and I, attended a presentation by the Simplicity Gourmet company. To be brief, the high pressure tactics, the unclear return policy, and the cost ($2900 for a 25-piece set) scared us off. However, the concept of "waterless cooking" was intriguing.

The way it was described was that it is a concept of low-heat cooking that requires little to no water or oil and cooks with no sticking to the pans. The pans themselves were described as being 7-ply surgical quality stainless steel construction with a "vapor seal" that locked in all the moisture from the food being cooked and a tea kettle like whistle system that when it starts whistling would let you know when your food is cooked properly.

For someone with as little talent in the kitchen as me, I found this VERY promising, however, as I said, I just couldn't pull the trigger because I didn't feel comfortable. Anyway, can some of you people with more experience in the kitchen than me comment on this type of cooking and why, if it is legit, can I not find similar products available in stores?

Thanks in advance for helping out one of the culinary illiterate.


----------



## chef norm

your intuition is correct--there is no such thing as waterless cooking, and all the promises of higher vitamin content, lower fat content, etc. are just that--promises. If it were true, why wouldn't everybody be using it? If it sounds too good to be true--it probably is!


----------



## phatch

The use of "surgical' means virtually nothing. Many steels and other items can accurately be called surgical, but it means nothing for cooking. And also for knives. 

From your description, it sounds like a pressure cooking system masked in hype and other bogusness. 

Phil


----------



## wingfanjim

That's what I figured. I guess now I will have to consider the differences between the stainless steel and non-stick pans (although it does appear that the part of their presentation about the dangers of the non-stick pans might not be totally false).


----------



## boar_d_laze

"Waterless" cookware is, as you have surmised, basically a scam for preying on health oriented consumers. There is no evidence that the cookware produces healthier foods than other pots and pans. The logic behind it holds up only as long as the salesman is talking. In fact, the cookware is low-pressure, first generation, pressure cooking technology. Nothing else.

On a related issue, there are in fact several lines of 'non-stick" cookware which hold up well and won't throw TFEs and/or PTFEs in measuarable quantities into your food. A good, affordable expample, residential-oriented line is Swiss Diamond. Don't take that as a recommendation, though. I'm not a fan of non-stick myself.

There are a variety of materials and construction methods used for making good pots and pans for home cooks. For pots, sauce-pans, and other vessels used for cooking liquids the best interior is stainless steel. Any number of metals or combination of metals, including stainless steel, make for good exteriors. 

The term "surgical stainless" steel refers to a range of steels with certain minimum percentages of nickel, molybdenum, chromium etc., which is also free from certain reactive materials like titanium. In fact you do want a lot of corrosion resistance -- which is mostly a function of having enough chromium. You also want a hard, scratch resistant surface. Which is why a grade of stainless called 18/10 is usually preferred for cooking interiors. 18/10 means 18% chromium and 10% nickel. 

Still with me?

Highly polished, hard interiors can be made relatively non-stick by using heat and a minimal amount of oil. 

However, the slickest surfaces are actually cast iron or carbon steel that has been properly cured with heat and oil, then properly maintained. Both of these surfaces allow foods to sear or saute properly without any negative health effects. Although, some care must be taken to control the use of highly acid ingredients in steel or cast iron cookware.

Cast iron has other advantages including heat stability. If you want to cook a lot of tomatoes in a cast iron pot -- you use enamel over cast iron. 

And so it goes -- different materials are best for different purposes. "Horses for courses," as the saying goes. And we've by no means covered the gamut, even for home cooks. This means that the best cookware set for any serious home cook is a motley group of several different types of pots and pans. 

If you're not serious, but just want something you don't have to worry about, and last a few years, a set of Emirilware or Wolfgang Puck or a similar line will do you well. 

BDL


----------



## wingfanjim

Wow! Thanks! Actually, thanks to everyone who has responded. It has been a big help. As I said, I'm a relative novice in the kitchen so I know very little about any of this stuff. Being a guy, I really don't care about having a "set" of cooking ware that matches or looks pretty. In the kitchen, I sort of take a construction worker's view of cooking. I don't care how it looks, I just want the right tool for the job...within reason.


----------



## mannlicher

Boar d laze most excellent advice. No single cooking vessel will do it all. I never recommend buying a set of cookware, and I always stress to have some copper, some cast iron, a bit of enameled cast iron, etc. 
This is but one rack of cookware in my kitchen, a real potpourri, if you will, of different styles and different materials, and represents years of collecting.


----------



## wingfanjim

wow! that's a lot of cookware!


----------



## maryb

Anodized aluminum for non-stick. Stainless for any high heat searing and tomato based foods.


----------



## boar_d_laze

With all due respect, IMO no. I use anodized aluminum (1st and 2d generation Calphalon) and it is not non-stick. It cannot really be seasoned either. Anodized aluminum is good for "high-heat searing" and "tomato based [i.e., acid] foods." It's perceived weakness as a searing material is its dark color which makes seeing fond a bit difficult. At least according to Cook's Illustrated and a few other reviewers who've downgraded it for its color. Personally, I think that's BS. The real weaknesses of this type of cookware -- which is indeed very good cookware -- is a tendency to warp and to eventually scratch.

Some truth there. Stainless as an insert for acidic foods, mos' def. As an insert in an aluminum or multiple "ply" shell, or as a shell sitting above a heavy aluminum or multi-ply disk, it prevents warping -- well, the multiple ply construction does. Plain stainless is very prone to warpage. Plain stainless tends to be sticky relative to the true high-performing sear surfaces.

Best for searing when acid is not an issue are well cured carbon steel cast iron -- nothing else is as good. Not even tin or stainless lined copper. They have enough mass to hold heat and not drop temp when the (relatively) cold meat is added to the pan. They have just enough stick to develop good fond. They release quickly and completely at exactly the right moment. The surfaces take aggressive handling and metal equipment without any problems.

Best for saute is carbon steel -- See above, plus light enough to toss the food. Plus cheap as chips. Copper lined with stainless and the multi-ply stainless wonders are a close second -- as long as they're heavy enough for good heat distribution and light enough to toss. Expensive, though. Aniodic aluminum -- good stuff. Fallen way out of favor for whatever reason. Lincoln/wearever makes a good line FWIW. Plain aluminum. I love plain ol' cheap commercial aluminum. It's so light, you can toss-turn so easily, yadda yadda yadda. Too bad about its reactive nature, eh? Still, nice to have a couple of pieces. All of this saute stuff is true for searing too, except weight isn't quite the issue.

Woks, paelleras, etc. -- Carbon steel. Whatever's next best is a lot more expenive. What's the point.

Omelette, crepe, etc. -- Carbon steel. Ditto.

Sauce pans -- the multi-ply pans kick butt.

BDL


----------



## wojcinski

I have read your post and the replies and am always amazed how quick people
like to use the word "scam" with something. Equally, I am amazed that most often
they have never used the product or concept or have taken the time to really look at the facts for that matter but somehow the "too good to be true" is thrown up as the end all. It's a shame because a really terrific concept potentially takes a hit in the process.

Here is where I agree; the promoted cookware, though I am sure is of good quality, is
going to be overpriced, for obvious reasons. The concept however looks solid. You do
most of your cooking in 1/4 inch of water, which is used (among other things) to create
a seal between the pan / pot and lid. They had to call the cookware something in order to set it apart from the rank in file. Much like "non-stick" is the cookware truly non-stick? No it is not, especially with someone who does not know how to properly use the product, true?

If you go to the Amazon site, you can get a set of Maxam cookware for about $227.00
and it's going to be about as good as anything out there, I know, I have checked.

NO! I haven't bought a set, yet, but will. I have tasted the end product and while I cannot testify as to the nutritional quality, I can say the taste is beyond anything else I
have experienced. That alone is worth the cost of the set (my opinion). 

There are just a few cookbooks out there, so you'll need to adapt. A major plus is that
you will get a first rate cookware set for barely more than the cost of a single all-clad pan (one or two at the most).

Check out the facts and make your own decision. Best of luck to you.


----------



## phatch

What facts? 

I can't turn up any independent testing or blind testing of results. Certainly no nutritive comparisons either. 

The health claims are similarly unsupported and likely unsupportable. Vitamins and other nutrients will still be altered by cooking and water as with all other cooking systems.

All of the claims I've seen could be surpassed by anything cooked sous vide.


----------



## boar_d_laze

I worked for the LA County DA in Consumer Protection for the first year I was out of law school, I'm comfortable with the word and don't use it loosely. 

The OP was asking about a $3,000 set of cookware including roughly some pans, lids and other accessories. 

Your amazement is poorly taken. You presumed. My ex-MIL had a set, I'm all too familiar

Which terriffic concept is that? Pressure cooking?

What are the obvious reasons? How and why are you sure the product was of good quality? And if the product is overpriced is it not a scam to the degree to which it is overpriced?

Which concept? Pressure cooking?

The expression is "rank and file," not "rank in file." I wasn't, and neither (I'm sure) was anyone else criticizing "waterless cookware" because water is employed.

You're babbling.

If a similar product, and no better as you state, is sold for more than ten times the cost on the basis that it's better and more healthful -- isn't that a scam? 

You really need to get out more.

Everyone has one. 

"Check out the facts, indeed!" Your post was interesting for a number of reasons. Among them were these two: Not only did you respond to a question so old (10 months) the OP was clearly beyond needing further advice, you failed to cognize the excessive price of the product at issue, nor of the claims made by the specific marketer.

BDL


----------



## amazingrace

The cookware under discussion is definately NOT any sort of pressure cooker. Pressure cookers are completely sealed units which require a stated amount of water or some other steam-producing liquid in order to function. Therefore they cannot in any way be regarded as "waterless". In addition, the lid of a pressure cooker cannot be removed at will due to the locking safety system. 

Before I got married in 1963, there was a brand of "waterless cookware" called "Incor". Some of the selling features were +fuel savings because of lower burner setting, + less loss of nutrients because only a tablespoon of water was required + you could cook an entire meal on one burner, because the lids would invert into the pan and allow other pans to sit on top. I was impressed, especially with the way the lids would do a kind of "floating spin" when the proper heat & steam were achieved. So I bought them for my hope chest. It took me over a year to pay for it. As a new bride, I was all excited about the marvelous meals I could produce in practially no time flat, using these miracle pans. In their defense, they were very well made, but I never did produce anthing near the results I saw the demonstrator do! Until very recently, I still had one of those pots. 

I have been to state fairs and similar venues, and have seen the type cookware under discussion being demonstrated. The demonstrators are very well-trained and slick. Typically at least one of the foods being cooked will have a high moisture content, to facilitate the demo. Other foods will have a marvelous aroma profile. They will show you how to make desserts as well. Older and wiser now, I wouldn't make the same purchase again. You can get a lot of quality cookware for a lot less than $2,500. The world is full of good cooks that don't own good pans. There are also a lot of bad to mediocre cooks whose kitchens contain fabulous cookware. My advice would be to learn to cook first, and don't purchase any new cookware until you know your way around the kitchen and know what sorts of pots and pans you need for the types of food you want to prepare.


----------



## chrislehrer

Here is a relevant website: waterless cookware.com. The page I've selected is the one that describes "the waterless way," i.e. how the stuff is supposed to work. It's not very coherent, but...

1. The stated quantity of water is 1/4 inch;
2. You run it until the valve whistles, then lock it down and run very low;
3. If you try to open it too soon, it's locked, and you have to depressurize.

Translation: low-pressure pressure cooking, with precisely the characteristics Grace describes. The stuff you got years ago may have been different, but this is presumably what BDL is describing.


----------



## ed buchanan

Anyone who would spend $3000.00 for a set of pots has got to be mad. It is not going to make you a better cook. 
For $3000.00 I would buy a pro -tilting kettle brassier and have it installed in my home, this would be the only pot or pan I would need.


----------



## bernardin

I confess I have never used "waterless pans", but I remember they have been flogged for at least 50 years (if memory serves)
If they were so great don't you think that All-Clad etal would have capitalized on the method. None have.


----------



## sammy888

I just found this site and it looks really good. I hope to learn a many things from all you experts. 

However, with much embarrassment and regret, we did buy the cookware a few months ago. We have the biggest case of buyer's remorse you could imagine. 

Americraft/Kitchen Craft and other waterless cookware brand really knows how to prey on people. They go to fairs like the PNE, home shows, and in-home demos--their main source of sales. Most people only go once to a fair because there is usually an admission charge and they dont have the time to do their research. They then tend to make an impromptu and uninformed purchase. The "cooling-off" period is virtually nothing, maybe a day or two. 

This cookware is nothing special. While it retains heat very well, the manufacturer's claims are "almost" disputable. Almost because I'm no attorney. There is no waterless cooking. Cooking vegetables such as broccoli or carrots requires the pan/pot to be 2/3rds full of water and it takes almost 30 minutes to cook. The cookbook and manufacturer Americraft heavily promote healthier living and cooking sprays as a method of non stick and low fat cooking. PAM and it's clones are suppose to be a "healthier" alternative. However, ingesting butane, IMO is hardly healthy. Plastic cooking sprays often contain BPA. This cookware is suppose to be oven safe to 350 degrees, yet the plastic handles will blister if exposed to direct heat. For cookware that costs this much, why the plastic handles?

Frying is really tricky and it messes up easily and stains the pan unless you use a lot of oil, probably more oil than a conventional stainless steel pan, in my experience. We have some heavy stains after making fried eggs and pancakes on the skillet...all while following the directions. We just can't get rid of them. We never had that problem before. 

The pitchman, in our case Dan Gauthier uses his bbq all year round, but not the cookware. What does that say? He claims the cookware is made in the USA so buy American! However, even though it may be assembled in the USA, the steel I would bet is from China. Who knows how much lead is in there?

Customer service with Americraft is almost non existent. Once they have your money, it's good bye sucka. I sent them an email, giving my feedback, but I never received a reply back. Others have had similar complaints. Americraft Kitchen Craft dont care. The cookware likely costs them less than $200 for our 11 piece set but it cost us almost $2500!

Any how, this is my rant. I hope people googling waterless cookware, daniel gauthier, americraft, and kitchen craft find this thread. Don't buy this insanely overpriced cookware!


----------



## missyjean

I, too, went to the fair and saw the demo for Americraft Cookware, a product of West Bend.

We purchased the set for $3,000. Later that night I realized we just could not spend this amount of money on a set of pots. I looked at our receipt and learned we had 72 hours to cancel the order.

I called the number on the receipt and was told I would have to send a written letter to cancel the order and it must be postmarked within 72 hours, or send a fax. 

In the post office, the clerk questioned me about the address. I was sending the letter of cancellation to a completely different address than the main office, which was in Florida. The person I spoke with never even informed me where this letter was to be sent and it was not on the receipt.

If it were not for an alert postal clerk, the letter would not have been received by the proper authorities in time to meet their 72 hour deadline.


----------



## sammy888

missyjean, i'm glad to read that you got your money back. i just did a search of this company on the better business bureau. they give them a rating of A-. this is another example of how one should only use the BBB as just one point of reference.

i would post a link but I need to have 5+ reviews.

Business Name: Americraft 
Kitchen Craft Warehouse 
Business Address: 245 N. Trenton Rd.
West Bend, WI 53095 

Original Business Start Date: 7/13/2004 Local Business Start Date: 7/13/2004 Type of Entity: Limited Liability Company (LLC) Incorporated: 2004 in FL Principal: Craig Weinand, Vice Pres. 
Phone Number: (877) 335-7267 
(262) 306-1171 
Fax Number: (352) 483-7603 
BBB Accreditation: This business is not a BBB Accredited Business 
Type of Business: COOKING UTENSILS 
SERVICES (GENERAL


----------



## missyjean

Hmmm, 2004! I was made to think this company had been in operation a long time. during the demo, we were told someone gave them their old Americraft cookware to show everyone how it held up all these years. I mean, 5 years is not a long time in the life of cookware. The demonstrator definitely made us feel he was talking about 30 year old cookware.


----------



## boar_d_laze

The company has been around for a fairly long time. The listing merely reflects the current "business form," i.e., as an LLC registered under that particular name. 

However, don't let longevity influence you. The product is incredibly overpriced and rather low performance, it is replete with a long and numerous history of complaints and specific dissatisfaction.

BDL


----------



## missyjean

Oh, I see. Thank you for clarifying that for me.


----------



## sammy888

Where are these complaints? I surely would like to bring this up at next year's fair. There are very limited "hits" on Google for this cookware.


----------



## boar_d_laze

There are several complaints in this thread; by way of a few other examples, see: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/in_home/n…; http://www.brides.com/forums/thread.jspa…; 
http://www99.epinions.com/content_170187…; and, http://www.consumeraffairs.com/homeowner…

Interesting thought. How? With whom?

BDL


----------



## sldeningo

On a google search the other day, I noticed this headline: _'"Waterless" cookware is, as you have surmised, basically a scam for preying on health oriented consumers.'_ The idea seemed offensive enough to pursue so I followed the thread to ChefTalk, signed up, got comfortable and settled in for a good read. Turns out the thread begins in '08 & peters out last November, age being a theme that threads through this brief narrative.

I'm no chef, new to the world of cookware, though I've been our family's primary cook for 40 years. I inherited pots & pans from mom, Revere, stainless steel with copper bottoms, unmanageable, insubstantial, the outer copper bottom requiring constant care and polish. I am assured the Revere will outlast me and my first born.

Turns out the '_scam_' heralded in an early post (boar_d_laze) about waterless cooking or '_health oriented consumers_' was, in part, targeting outrageous prices for waterless cookware pandered at state fairs and home demonstrations. $2000+ for cookware is insane; still, financial illiterates are born every day. But that's business, not cookware. I'm sure the majority of Chefs among you would agree well crafted cookware can be had from $100 to $300 for a set of utensils.

But as for the other scam: Waterless cooking (and the cookware that makes waterless cooking possible) is, in fact, the most nutrient friendly method/utensil for preserving and retaining the few precious minerals remaining in today's fresh produce. In articles targeted at '_health oriented consumers'_, Paul R. McCann (author of "The Science of Nutrition") is often cited by today's waterless tribe. In a compendium of research, McCann summarizes the nutrient retention of the waterless method of cooking fresh vegetables.

McCann cites seminal research by W.H.Peterson and C.A.Hoppert, published in the Journal of Home Economics (University of Wisconsin, dated May 1925, back when real research was publicly funded) which scientifically measured mineral and protein loss based on cooking method. Peterson and Hoppert clearly demonstrated that *Boiled* veggies lost roughly 50% of Iron, Calcium, Phosphorus and Magnesium; *Steamed* veggies lost roughly 20% of these minerals; *Pressure Cooked* veggies lost 2%. The caveat? In 1925, 'pressure cooking' (15 lbs pressure) is today what we call *Waterless Cooking*. The weighted lids of Waterless Cookware release steam vapor at about 15 lbs pressure.

It's understood that the human body can't absorb vitamins without a variety of minerals present (Iron, Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium for example) to breakdown constituents. Mineral deficient diets are a health challenge today.

1925 is a long time ago but the human hasn't really changed. Our food has though. In the 1930's Dr. Norhtern and colleagues detailed findings of significant mineral, vitamin and crude protein loss in vegetables being grown in new 'factory farms' proliferating across America. Google Document 264 of June 1936 and read the document presented on the floor of the United States Senate. What was proven in 1930 (nutritive deficient produce) is deplorably apparent today: Mineral deficient diets are a major contributing factor to epidemic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, stroke and depression. Today, childhood diabetes affects _one in four children_ in the USA-one in 50 in 1980, rare in 1930.

So a scam other than the 'business' of cookware is apparent in this thread; one of opinion spoke with the buffoonery of fact. _'"Waterless" cookware is, as you have surmised, basically a scam for preying on health oriented consumers.'_ Our challenge, as home cooks or culinary aficionados, is to retain what few nutrients remain in what we call 'fresh produce' today.


----------



## phatch

Sounds like cherry picked results to me.


----------



## sldeningo

...touche phatch!

...real science still trumps opinon & there's plenty of it (science that is). Mannlicher's cookware pantry is a sight to behold; were we all so well healed. Boar d laze, in his 'scam' post, gave nod to stainless steel and was true to the metallurgy. Harold McGee (_On Food and Cooking, The Science and Lore of The Kitchen_) comments similarly on the refinements of modern stainless steel utensils; "..._still, these hybrids are the closest thing we have to the ideal chemically inert but thermally responsive pan_." (pg 791 - 2004 revised addition)

I grew up in SLC, corner of 61st south (Vine Street) and Highland Drive. Know the corner? Spring alfalfa had me sneezing all day. Irrigation ditches rippled with carp & colonies of asparagus grew tall & lanky on the grassy swales. An automated car wash resides where once-upon-a-time-ago the scamps of Vine Street played ball & tasted the sweet aimlessness of summer afternoons, perched in the crotch of an apricot tree. The tales were tall & the fruit genuine--the "_cherry picked result_" of what we call today 'organic' orchards. Maybe you're too young to appreciate...


----------



## leeniek

I went to a home show a few years ago and I was surprised at the amout of cookware purveyors at the show who were touting their products as the "best ever"  and I sat through a waterless cooking demo.  We were given samples of the food and it did taste very good but honestly the $3K price tag was more than enough for me to say no thanks.  We were all given a free gift for sitting through the demo and while I had thought it was going to be a small saucepan it was a paring knife.  I won a second prize (again a paring knife) for answering a question correctly so for twenty minutes of my time, I got two really good paring knives.  I take one to work with me when I know I am working fruits for the day as it is the best knife I have ever had for making apple spears.  I still have my set of Meyer pots and pans that I had at that time but I am expanding my collection to include other pans that serve a specific purpose.


----------



## justpj

If you really want to try the "waterless cookware" ....go to yard sales and garage sales....for about $2.00 per pan you can get all you want!


----------



## kyheirloomer

I've got no opinion on the efficacy of this stuff, as I've only seen it sold at a farm conference.

But.....I do want to meet the folks who have 3 grand to drop on something sold only by hucksters at a state fairs and the like. Boy, oh boy, do I have a deal for them......


----------



## sldeningo

So true, leeniek.  Invest in basic pots & pans then add as needed for specific cooking needs--boar d laze's point as well.  $2 is a good starting point to mix & match (JustPJ) or spend $200 on a set of quality stainless steel waterless utensils & have yourself a lifetime of dependable cookware.

I spend much of my time helping customers search for replacement knobs & handles for their ware (even tho it's not a brand we represent).  My 'pic' is a photo of the first West Bend 'waterless' utensil to flavor the market (parts no longer available).

I frequently hear from those who've unwittingly paid $thousands for cookware (state fair & home demonstrations) with truly regretable buyers remorse; folks who only research what they've bought after they've bought it.  It's disgusting really, the scam, & gives the whole industry a bitter aftertaste.  It's no fun talking with these folks.  There's just no way to get the money back--sellers won't honor the 36 hour right-of-refusal without a buyer's legal representative contacting them. 

Wojcinski mentioned Maxam as a brand she found online for $227 a set.  That's the brand Lorie & I have used for years.  & boar d laze is right; the sauce pans are truly perfect for the task.  We love healthy, low heat methods of cooking without excessive oil, fats & water.  Just makes good cents (sense).


----------



## sldeningo

So true, leeniek.  Invest in basic pots & pans then add as needed for specific cooking needs--boar d laze's point as well.  $2 is a good starting point to mix & match (JustPJ) or spend $200 on a set of quality stainless steel waterless utensils & have yourself a lifetime of dependable cookware.

I spend much of my time helping customers search for replacement knobs & handles for their ware (even tho it's not a brand we represent).  My 'pic' is a photo of the first West Bend 'waterless' utensil to flavor the market (parts no longer available).

I frequently hear from those who've unwittingly paid $thousands for cookware (state fair & home demonstrations) with truly regretable buyers remorse; folks who only research what they've bought after they've bought it.  It's disgusting really, the scam, & gives the whole industry a bitter aftertaste.  It's no fun talking with these folks.  There's just no way to get the money back--sellers won't honor the 36 hour right-of-refusal without a buyer's legal representative contacting them. 

Wojcinski mentioned Maxam as a brand she found online for $227 a set.  That's the brand Lorie & I have used for years.  & boar d laze is right; the sauce pans are truly perfect for the task.  We love healthy, low heat methods of cooking without excessive oil, fats & water.  Just makes good cents (sense).

oops!  I inadvertantly posted this to the wrong thread.


----------



## bcycler

Wingfanjim, what kind of stove are you cooking on?

All non stick cookware or waterless cookware eventually becomes sticky as deposits and residue build up.

On cheap non stick cookware the coating eventually gives way. To that end I bought a ScanPan (ceramic-titanium nonstick technology) skillet at more expense about 3 years ago and still have it. It has held up better than most but after a couple of years it was just another pan, at least the coating has never pealed. We recently moved on to Tri-ply stainless which cooks better than anything we've previously owned but I may get one good non-stick again as sometimes I just want to be lazy about the clean up.

---

Ps. The Diamond Waterless guy hits our local fair every year.


----------



## sammy888

We will be attending the local fair again this year where these pitchmen will be pawning off their cookware.

Do you think we should make a comment about our experiences after the pitchman does his shpiel to warn others?   I mean, the word HAS to get out that this men and women are robbing people.


----------



## les3547

My first post here was inspired by reading comments that seemed to be associating over-charging for cookware, and the process of waterless cooking itself. My appreciation goes out to *Sldeningo* for trying to made sense of these two separate issues.

Forty years ago when I first got into cooking (during the "health food" craze in the US) someone showed me how to cook vegetables without boiling them. Now, I'd been raised on boiled vegetables, and that was why I disliked them. Overcooked, flavorless, slimy, colorless, limp . . . are a few adjectives that come to mind. But my mentor at the time had me choose one of my least favorite vegetables which, as a challenge, she claimed should could get me to like.

I chose green beans. After tasting her method of cooking them with just the barest coating of water on the bottom of the pan, my attitude toward vegetables were forever changed by how much more flavor there was, how bright green they appeared, their al dente perfection. I've read the studies that point to the advantages of steaming over boiling, but even if there were no health advantages, one can still, without doubt, taste the difference -- and that should be more than enough reason to apply a waterless cooking method and abandon boiling them (plus food cooks faster).

Does one require official "waterless" cookware? Hell no. I cook waterless with all my All-Clad pans, and they seal just fine (but if I did want a bit more pressure inside I'd put some weight on top of the lid, as I used to for rice before I began using a pressure cooker instead). I've also visited friends where I had to cook with very cheap pans, and I still was able to cook waterless (even when I've had to come up with a make-shift lid for one that was missing on a pan).

So basically my point is, waterless cooking is awesome, paying a fortune for specialty pans to do is unnecessary, and these are two completely separate issues. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/thumb.gif


----------



## phatch

Go read On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee. Vitamins are lost for many reasons. Water solubiity is one and steaming doesn't stop all of that nor does so called waterless cooking. Heat also breaks down certain vitamins. The waterless technique is no better than vegie steamers.


----------



## chefedb

Here I thought it was summertime and yet they have been giving you snow.DON'T BELIEVE a thing they say it;s all BS . Stainless steel goes by the thickness or gauge. Their is no surgical SS . I am not going to go deep into this as BDL has said it all. Stainless pots inside tend to burn and develop hot spots. Me, I would go Caliphon ,or All CLad and lastly Circullon. I have all of these brands and have had them for years. Stay away from Teflon  go with the Ironstone 2nd generation non stick surface. The only pan you really need with a coating is a fry pan for eggs.

25 piece pot set is a lot of pots and pans unless they are counting the ladles,spatulas, slotted spoons etc In fact with 25 pots I could do a party of 200 easy. Also stay away from American as they to are way overpriced. In fact one of our arena's down here is named for them. Save your money, but buy a good set or individual pieces . I have wearever rest quality  sauce pansfrom the 1950s and they are still shiny , not warped and heavier then any I can buy today. If anything buy them by their weight. Cheapest prices around go to a Homegoods store I believe Marshal's owns them. Cheapest I have found. Happy Hunting


----------



## les3547

[to Phatch] Did you read my entire post? I did not recommend waterless cooking because of nutrition, even though there are studies that support that; and McGee doesn't say all damage done by all cooking methods are equal, so I don't see how relevant your point is that steaming damages. Studies published in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture discusses the amount of damage done by by various cooking methods:

"The first study found that the simplest cooking method [microwaving] was also the worst when it came to preserving nutrients. Broccoli lost 97 percent of flavonoids, 74 percent of sinapics and 87 percent of caffeoyl-quinic derivatives (three different types of antioxidants) when it was microwaved. When boiled the conventional way (i.e., not in a pressure-cooker), this green lost 66 percent of its flavonoids; when tossed in a pressure cooker, broccoli lost 47 percent of its caffeoyl-quinic acid derivatives. *Steamed broccoli, on the other hand, lost only 11 percent, 0 percent and 8 percent, respectively, of flavonoids, sinapics, and caffeoyl-quinic derivatives."* [my emphasis]

However, I emphasized the advantage of TASTE (and color) in my comments. For those of us who like to taste our food (and prefer veggies bright and colorful), waterless techniques are distinctly better; if anyone says differently they simply haven't tried vegetables cooked that way versus boiling (or, if they have, then their taste buds/eyes are really screwed up). If a cooking method at the very least produces better tasting food and more colorful food (without additional loss of nutrition), then why would that not automatically be preferable?

Waterless cooking (as I described it above) is essentially steaming.


----------



## phatch

Yes, I know it's steaming. Thus my stating that a vegie steamer is the equivalent. Yes, I've had food in this technique and for a few things, it's OK. Not better than other tecniques for flavor and down right horrid in many ways for texture where they pack the whole meal in there and cook it as long as the item that needs the longest cooking.


----------



## les3547

Since I am a vegetarian, all I can speak to is how utterly superior waterless cooking is to boiling veggies. I assume we are not including frying or saute as cooking options, at least I'm not; I just am being negative about the damaging, and needless, practice of boiling veggies. I have never in my entire life tasted a boiled vegetable (except a tough one like corn) that doesn't suffer in taste and color (and corn still cooks _faster_ using the waterless method).

But I'd also say that waterless cooking is far better than typical steaming (having tried it many times) because whether with a little insert stuck in the bottom of one's pan, or a dedicated insert such as the All-Clad I have, the insert gets in the way of the rising steam and so cooks both unevenly and more slowly. But using nothing but a film of water on bottom of a pan avoids the leaching factor, uses less energy because there's less water to heat and steam cooks faster, and yields a vegetable that looks and tastes better. So why would any ever boil a vegetable???


----------



## phatch

I didn't argue to boil a vegetable, and even among classic cuisine about as close as you get to boiling a vegetable in the general case is blanching.


----------



## les3547

Sorry, but I couldn't tell why you answered my posts as you did.  It seems like you are a busy person and so not carefully reading posts (which I can understand), but I kept at it because I wanted to stand 1000% behind waterless cooking, and you seemed to keep pooh-poohing it.

If you read my first post, I came out in support of waterless cooking of vegetables, but also agreeing that one doesn't need special cookware to achieve it.

You answered "Go read On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee. Vitamins are lost for many reasons. Water solubiity is one and steaming doesn't stop all of that nor does so called waterless cooking. Heat also breaks down certain vitamins. The waterless technique is no better than vegie steamers."

I don't know why you answered that way since my point wasn't about the loss of vitamins, but even if it were, boiling causes more damage than steaming.

You then said "Yes, I know it's steaming. Thus my stating that a vegie steamer is the equivalent. Yes, I've had food in this technique and for a few things, it's OK. Not better than other tecniques for flavor and down right horrid in many ways for texture where they pack the whole meal in there and cook it as long as the item that needs the longest cooking."

Okay, I thought, maybe I didn't make it clear enough I was talking about boiling versus waterless cooking (not versus saute, for example).  But then, you also tried to say steaming and waterless cooking are equivalent, and that's just not true for a number of reasons which I cited.

It seems to me you don't know about waterless cooking.  I'd guess that is likely due to, like most chefs, preferring to saute or roast veggies plus vegetables are not your main focus in cooking (as they are for me).  Not faulting you for that if that's the case, but a person living on veggies/grains is more focused on extracting and preserving every bit of flavor possible, and waterless cooking is the best way to achieve that sans oil cooking.

So I am not trying to be difficult about all this, but I am trying to HIGHLY recommend waterless cooking!  As I have already said a couple of times, one doesn't need special pans to cook that way, and we shouldn't let scammers detract from the great benefits of the waterless technique itself.


----------



## petemccracken

Guess I have a "problem", "waterless" means "no water" to me, not a little water, NO WATER, period!

Second, the last time I even saw a "boiled vegetable" was over 55 years ago, at least in the sense of cooking a vegetable in boiling water until it is "mush". Now, I WILL admit to "simmering" a wide variety of vegetables for vegetable stock and a variety of soups.

ANYONE who advocates a specific cooking technique as being the "ultimate" or the "best way" is, in my book, suspect as to ulterior motives, most generally to buy something or proselytize.

Like politics and religion, believe whatever you wish but don't tell me what you think "I" should believe, thank you.


----------



## boar_d_laze

Les,

Look pal, you cited steaming in several of your posts implying as a beneficial cooking method equating it with "waterless cooking."

Phil ("Phatch") did not say you should use a multi-rack steamer (AS SEEN ON TV!) to cook a multi-course meal in a single pot.  That false association is one you projected on your own.

Waterless cooking is steaming, no different than normal steaming with the following twists:  (1)  The lid is tightly fixed to the pan, so that no moisture is lost; because (2) Only a bare minimum of water is used. 

There is nothing magic about the method or in any way different from steaming above a rack set in a closed vessel.  "Waterless cooking" is simply steaming either done well or poorly.  What makes it waterless is that the food is steamed and not boiled. 

As far as I can tell the reason it even has a name is as a marketing gimmick for hugely overpriced cookware.  Which, by the way, we all understand you neither use nor endorese -- so no reason for more denial.  We get it.

The huge secret you endorse seems to be to remove the item when it's fully cooked, and neither under nor over cooked.  Again, we get it. 

Great. 

Please understand, no one with the slightest sophistication believes the "waterless cooking" hooey about "nutrition" anymore than about a "mucousless" diet. 

The sixties are over my friend.  Time to let them go.  If they were still here, they'd tell you to move on with your life and fall in love with a more current decade.

BDL


----------



## les3547

Pete McCracken:

I don't understand this site in the slightest. Are you all a bunch of angry cooks? Or is this supposed to be a fellowship of those who like to cook and learn about cooking? Who knows all there is to know? 

The term "waterless cooking" has been around for a long time to describe the bare-minimum use of water to cook vegetables so that nutrients are best retained.  That scammers jumped on the idea and tried to rip off trusting consumer, or that "waterless" isn't perfectly descriptive of the process, is utterly irrelevant to the issue of if the waterless technique has value.  

I am not advocating anything "specific" except that boiling (which you seem to agree isn't so hot) is inferior to steaming (in terms of nutrient, flavor and color retention).  So why are you, or anyone here, giving me sh*t??????  In my experience as a vegetarian chef, I have found most cooking enthusiasts are not as up on (or care about) the preservation of veggie potentials.  I only posted in this thread to stick up for minimum water cooking since it seemed to be unfairly associated with the specialty-pan scam.


----------



## les3547

Boar_d_laze:

Again, I must ask why the hostility?  I am not a "pal," I don't need to get out of the sixties, I don't need to move on with my life. 

I don't think cooking with a bare minimum of water is well-known with most people even if cooking geniuses like yourself understand it perfectly.  I posted in this thread to clarify to those less brilliant than yourself that there is no need to link the scam of selling over-priced pans with the process of cooking with very, very, very little water.

Now tell me, why would you object to that?  Is it that you think the only people who read, or should read, at this site are mega-genuis, all-knowing, omniscient chef beings like yourself?  Do you think it just might be that some of us come here to learn and help, want to contribute and share, and don't feel like they have to exhibit their massive egos on every occasion by trying to demean contributers?


----------



## chefedb

Most quality restaurants do not steam vegies. We blanch them. Dropping into boiling water then ice water shocking. Then at service time saute in butter salt pepper and a pinch of sugar. Thus improving tast over 100 %. My customers are interested in taste and texture as well as overalll quality and presentation. I am not running a health care facility or hospital, if I were then I would act accordingly and steam and waterless cook everything.


----------



## boar_d_laze

Originally Posted by *les3547* 


> Boar_d_laze:
> 
> [...] Is it that you think the only people who read, or should read, at this site are mega-genuis, all-knowing, omniscient chef beings like yourself? Do you think it just might be that some of us come here to learn and help, want to contribute and share, and don't feel like they have to exhibit their massive egos on every occasion by trying to demean contributers?


In a word, no.

My problem with you isn't with your technique or your opinion. My problem is that you seem compelled to keep putting it forth despite the fact that there's no there there. All you're saying is that it's possible to steam with very little water in cookware which isn't advertised as "waterless." If you have something to say about why that's superior to normative steaming, you haven't said it.

My feeling was that your several references to the nutritonal benefits of steaming as opposed to other methods of cooking, and implying "waterless" cooking was steaming, but was also not steaming was both poorly taken and misleading.

I used the "sixties" because the term itself "waterless" is child of the junk nutritional "science," so prevalent at the time. Your technique is not in fact waterless cooking. It's called "steaming." Whether steaming conveys significant health benefits as opposed to other techniques where the vegetables are neither overcooked nor cooked with unhealthy (and delicious!) additions, is another set of questions. For instance,

is a piece of steamed eggplant cooked a point so much healthier than one similarly perfectly cooked on a cast iron grill pan? How about a "waterless" baby carrot as opposed to one blanched in vegetable stock then briefly sauteed in olive oil?

I'm actually pretty selective, and try to reserve demeaning to arguments rather than people. If you found me calling you "pal" and referring to the sixties to problematic, I apologize. Clearly, you are not my pal.

You clearly mean to be offensive and insulting. Congratulations. You succeeded.

BDL


----------



## boar_d_laze

Les,

We're off to a very bad start.  What do you say we start over?

BDL


----------



## boar_d_laze

While I stand by most of the factual arguments made in the original version of this post, I certainly could have been friendlier.  Since most of the arguments are made elsewhere anyway, in the spirit of good fellowship I'm leaving it at this.

BDL


----------



## les3547

boar_d_laze said:


> Les,
> 
> We're off to a very bad start. What do you say we start over?
> 
> BDL


Good Idea. I got irritated before you ever responded because I simply wanted to distinguish between cooking with a tiny amount of water in the pan, and the cookware scam. It seems this site has a lot of professional chefs who respond from the point of view of what it is like in a restaurant setting. I assumed since when I signed up there was "home chef" choice, this site was for people cooking in all varieties of situations (plus the OP didn't seem to be from a pro). So I answered as I did for people who cook at home, and possibly who didn't know about the advantages of cooking with a few tablespoons of water in a pan with a fitted lid. And I did, by the way, explain why that kind of "waterless" cooking method is better than normal steaming methods (because in the home at least, most use a steaming insert that interferes with steam circulation).

Anyway, I tend to get fierce when I know something is true (that waterless cooking has value), and it seems what I am saying is being rejected out of hand. Sorry for unleashing my frustration at you!


----------



## petemccracken

IMHO, low-water (waterless) cooking definitely has its place. However, it is NOT the "end-all" solution for cooking anything, including vegetables. And yes, it is preferable to "boiling" vegetables into mush, however I think I will still "boil" my potatoes /img/vbsmilies/smilies/crazy.gif

It is but one of many cooking techniques that might be utilized, depending upon the desired end results, IMHO.

EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinion, whether or not it is well-founded or otherwise.

As far as many vegetables go, I happen to prefer roasting for some, sautéing for others, steaming for some others, blanching for many others, and yes, even boiling for some.


----------



## sobehall

I like how this post went from one extreme to another and not at one point mentioned what brand was being sold.  AmeriCraft is a brand that I recently purchased, and yes it was pricey.  You should research your products before choosing, and you should know who you are buying from.  KitchenCraft/AmeriCraft have been around for quite sometime and my family has had pans almost 40yrs old purchased from them.  They are true to their lifetime warranty if somehow you warp a pot or pan, they replace it.  My grandmother had one of their pans and recent sent it in just because she wanted the newer model, they gladly replaced it with no questions asked.  

I'm almost surprised that no one from the company has said anything on this site about how people are spouting their opinions and no truths.  I personally have spent thousands of dollars on cookware that has ended up in the garbage because of warping, burning on the inside and outside, handles falling off etc... and to me, investing in a cookware that can be replaced at anytime was the catch for me.  Call me silly ... but it's sorta like buying a $1000 car every 6months, instead of buying a $15,000 car that is more reliable.  Of course we can't take that back but you get the idea.  

Oh well, I don't feel bad for my decision, and I still say that cast iron is the best cooking utensil of all ... **high five**


----------



## phatch

As this was just brought back up again, i think I'll lock it down this time just to end it.


----------

