I get the difference between tender cuts and tough cuts on an animal being cooked fast versus low and slow. But to my understanding, the slow cooking methods are there to break down the collagen into gelatin and that’s the difference between tough meats and tender meats; tender meat doesn’t contain a bunch of collagen. (I’ve been using my “On Food and Cooking” book as a reference).

But when it comes to onions, an onion is an onion right? I always thought a caramelized onion was pretty much how it was described in the Slate article, “dark, soft, brown and sweet.”

Watching that video on the Stella site, the onions do look caramelized when the video timer passes 9 minutes and then overdone (in my not so knowledgeable opinion) when the guy actually puts them on the plate. But the onions definitely look soft and cooked through.

I guess what I don’t get is, isn’t caramlization the same chemical reaction no matter how long it takes. If you put raw sugar in a pan (or in the case of an onion, fructose, according to McGee) doesn’t it either caramelize or not caramelize depending purely on the temperature of the sugars and not the amount of time it took for the sugars to reach those temperatures. So if the onions sugar caramelize and the onions are cooked long enough to make them soft, aren’t those caramelized onions? Or am I missing something?

I haven’t tried the 10 minute method yet but assuming that the onions are soft, dark brown and sweet, if you didn’t know they were cooked in 10 minutes wouldn’t they be called caramelized onions? I mean, I get that taking 45-60 minutes could produce a better result, but the debate always seemed to be over whether or not it was possible to “caramelize onions” in 10 minutes (which I guess the word caramelization is the real sticking point), not which method produces “the best” caramelized onions.

Anyways, thanks for you thought provoking post and turning me onto this subject. In the end I guess it’s just all semantics anyways but I find the debate fascinating.

Matt

For a parallel example, look at what happens to meat when you cook it hot and fast versus low and slow. Hot and fast is good when the cut is naturally tender and you want the meat to to be rare. But if you take a tough cut that has a lot of connective tissue and cook it hot and fast, you end up with something so tough it’s almost inedible.

But take that tough cut and cook it low and slow and the collagen in the connective tissues eventually turn into gelatin, which is why slow-cooked meat “falls off the bone.” Perhaps there’s something similar happening with the sugars and proteins in onions.

Some people have made references to very deeply caramelized onions. In my case, my caramelized onions don’t go so deep (you can see a picture here, although usually they go a bit deeper than that).

I suspect there’s a couple of things going on here. First, maybe my caramelized onions aren’t very “maillardized.” They’re definitely very sweet and not tart or astringent at all. But the color doesn’t get very brown. (Again, the difference between caramelizing and browning.)

When you fry onions, you get browning (Maillard?) on the outside, but the inside remains “somewhat cooked but not really caramelized.”

When you cook low and slow for an hour or so, you get little browning, but the caramelization effect is thorough — which is to say the middle of the onion is just as caramelized as the surface.

When you cook low and slow for a very long time you get full caramelization, PLUS maillard-like browning all the way through.

At least that’s how I see it.

I understand the difference between the Maillard Reaction and caramelization. But can you please explain how the browning that occurs over a long period of time is technically different from a browning that occurs over a short period of time? I can’t wrap my mind around distinguishing the two.

Is the 10 minute version really “Maillard Onions?” At what point do “maillard onions” become caramelized onions? Is it a temperature threshold or a time threshold?

Aren’t the same sugars or chemicals or whatever caramelizing or browning whether that reaction is occurring fast or slow?

I’m so confused… :-/

One of the things that bugs me is the feeling that the younger generation is not expecting to have to work: parents my age are fully intending on paying for their children’s full course of study, and sometimes even for their apartment. They say the “job” of a student is to study, not to work. And the kids are fine with it, of course.

If the parents have a lot of money, then it’s not a big issue. But a lot of parents are going to get deeper in debt just to put their kids through school. It just seems normal these days. People see it as their duty as a parent. It drives me nuts. What are we teaching them when we are willing to give them things so easily?

But like Ed, I’m trying to put my “geezer” feelings aside and realize that part of my strong reaction to this situation is pure envy. I wish that my parents had been able to help me. I wish it had been easier. I wish that my parents generation (and economical class) had believed that a college education was a fondamental thing. But I would have never asked them to get in debt for me. I knew I had to do my part. This was the time in my life when my adult choices started. Mom and dad had to do it for themselves. It was my turn. (I have to admit though that lodging was cheaper back then – proportionally – and it seemed like the student fees were better used than they are now by the universities’ administrations.)

Anyway, all of this has changed for me in the last few days, culminating with the amazingly arrogant jokes our prime minister made during his Salon du Plan Nord speech yesterday. The issue is bigger now: it’s about corruption, contempt, democracy and respect. We’re getting too much of the first two and not enough of the last two. We really need elections right now. Unfortunately, we’ll probably have to wait two more years. Let’s hope people won’t have “la mémoire courte”.