I tried it this morning; two eggs and an ounce or so of cold water
into a 16oz jar that used to contain salza; screw on the lid, and
shake vigorously for 15-20 seconds.
Worked very well; very uniform eggs with a bit of foam on top.
Added sauces, closed lid, and shook a few times to mix those in,
and it was ready to go in the skillet.
Faster, no utensils, easy cleanup; just make sure the lid is on
tight (I held it by top and bottom for more security). What's not
to like?
The idea came to me earlier this week while I was doing something
unrelated. It's how I'll prepare eggs from now on.
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
"It's kind of hard to rally 'round a math class."
Paul "Bear" Bryant
>ghe...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote:
>>It's how I'll prepare eggs from now on.
> Prepare them for what? It seems to me that the procedure you
>describe would result in a finished dish resembling a dish sponge.
I normally cook a frittata for breakfast; sauteed vegetables with
whipped eggs poured in. Whipped eggs also are needed to make scrambled
eggs, quiche, or omlettes.
There are more ways to prepare eggs than fried.
>>...by not actually whipping them. Use a jar.
>>I tried it this morning; two eggs and an ounce or so of cold water
>>into a 16oz jar that used to contain salza; screw on the lid, and
>>shake vigorously for 15-20 seconds.
[ ... ]
>Water? I use milk or cream as an additive to scrambled eggs, if using any thing
>besides just eggs. I guessing you removed the shell first and broke the yolks.
>Of course, I am used to using farm fresh eggs that have strong yolks. Store
>bought eggs probably break just by shaking.
I don't use enough milk or cream to keep it from going bad before I use it
up. They'd also add calories.
I did remove the shell, of course, but didn't need to break the yokes; they
did that quite easily in the first few seconds of shaking.
>I like the idea of using a jar, easier than whisking. You could also add some
>onion (fresh or dried), bacon bits, or cheese for a little more flavor. And
>poach the eggs in none stick poaching pans in the microwave. Takes a little
>practice to get it right, but makes a good lower caloric breakfast egg.
Bacon is on the side; the eggs go over diced potatos, jalapeno peppers,
bell peppers, habaneros (if I have them), onions, mushrooms, and cheese
goes on top. Good thing I only cook on weekends... :-)
Agreed. The more air you add the less oomph you get. Every morning DH
makes some sort of frittata/quiche/souffle for breakfast. He fries up
the meat and veg, gently whisks the eggs into a scramble with a small
amount of 1/2 & 1/2, and adds it to the pan. Then several kinds of
cheese goes in and the whole pan goes into the oven to puff up. Once
it's set (and about 3 inches high) it gets pulled out, folded over,
and served up as a 6" high scrambled layer cake. Low carbing is SO
satisfying.
No, whipped eggs are not required for scrambled eggs. Some people
don't like them with a lot of air incorporated into them. I stir mine
with
a fork until the yolks and whites are pretty well mixed.
Cindy Hamilton
>>>> It's how I'll prepare eggs from now on.
>>> Prepare them for what? It seems to me that the procedure you
>>> describe would result in a finished dish resembling a dish sponge.
>> I normally cook a frittata for breakfast; sauteed vegetables with
>> whipped eggs poured in. Whipped eggs also are needed to make
>> scrambled eggs, quiche, or omlettes.
> No, whipped eggs are not required for scrambled eggs. Some
> people don't like them with a lot of air incorporated into them. I
> stir mine with a fork until the yolks and whites are pretty well mixed.
Yeah, I open the eggs into a glass and mix them with
a splade/fork and then pour that into the frying pan.
>>No, whipped eggs are not required for scrambled eggs.
Nor even desired. The more air you whip in the less height you get when you
cook them. If you add too much air to a souffl� you end up with a lead-like
custard instead of a fluffy cloud. This is egg cooking 101, people.
That is just plain wrong, most obviously with omlettes where
you whip the whites stiff before adding the yokes back.
> If you add too much air to a souffl� you end up
> with a lead-like custard instead of a fluffy cloud.
Doesnt work like that with omlettes.
> This is egg cooking 101, people.
Fraid not.
??? Why on earth would you separate eggs when making an omelette? You
can't spell it so why should you know how to make one?
It is one way of doing omlettes which blows a great hole in her stupid claim.
> You can't spell it so why should you know how to make one?
Presumably you actually are that stupid.
Yup. Can't make it or spell it. Heh.
I crack mine into the skillet and stir them with the egg flipper. No
bowl or jar needed. Now, if I can just get the hen to lay them in the
skillet I can cut out another superfluous step.
Jeff
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>> No, whipped eggs are not required for scrambled eggs.
>>>
>>> Nor even desired. The more air you whip in the less height you get when you cook them.
>>>
>> That is just plain wrong, most obviously with omlettes where
>> you whip the whites stiff before adding the yokes back.
> Sorry, but what you're making is not an omelette.
Wrong.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=omlette+separate+stiff
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=omelette+separate+stiff
> You are
> describing a mis-named "American" or "diner" omelette -- sort of an
> abortive souffl� which is, to many, a bland, spongey, inedible mess
> that usually gets sent back, if I'm paying. Excluding or, at the least
> minimizing, air in the mix is essential.
400K clearly disagree.
> Julia Child demonstrates the classic omelette technique here:
> http://www.savory.tv/2009/07/29/julia-child-omelette/
Irrelevant to the original silly claim about less height.
> An alternative, and the one that I use, is to pour the mixture into
> a large pan so that it is thin like a crepe and then to distribute the
> uncooked portion by smoothing it with a fork, as described in _The
> Joy of Cooking_. This technique makes it easy to add other
> ingredients and easily fold the omelette over with a simple flip of
> the pan when plating.
> FWIW: Mario Batali demonstrates the making of a classic Italian
> frittata (redundant, I know....) here:
> http://www.savory.tv/2009/04/05/mario-batali-frittata/
>
> Unfortunately the "best" recipe for a passable "Denver" American
> omellete is on a subscription site.
>
>>> This is egg cooking 101, people.
>>
>> Fraid not.
> ...'fraid so
Fraid not.
>>>
>>>> You can't spell it so why should you know how to make one?
>>>
>>
>> Yup. Can't make it or spell it. Heh.
>
> All those 110K too eh ?
> http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=omlette+separate+stiff
>
And if you could read you would have seen:
Did you mean: omelette separate stiff
for which there are 238K hits (more than twice the incorrect spelling).
Don't worry, there are lots of other idiots out there. You fit right in.
PLONK!
Both spellings are allowed, fool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omlette
And "irregardless" is now in the dictionary, too. Doesn't make it
"allowed", just accepted. You will also note that the entire article
uses "omelette". Spelling is like an IQ test and most people score an
epic fail.
Corse it does. Thats what dictionaries do, report what is used in enough numbers to matter.
just accepted. You will also note that the entire article
> uses "omelette".
That is a lie, it clearly says that both are acceptable spellings.
That is just more commonly seen.
> Spelling is like an IQ test
Nothing like in fact.
and most people score an
> epic fail.
You can not even manage the most basic logic.
Or even manage to grasp that how omelette or omlette is spelled is completely irrelevant
to the FACT that that particular type of omlette blows a damned great hole in the original
claim that the more air you put into the eggs, the flatter the result ends up.
That approach to making omlettes does in fact end up with a LESS flat
omlette than the other approach which does not entrain air into the eggs.
>tmclone wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>And "irregardless" is now in the dictionary, too. Doesn't make it "allowed",
>>
>>
>
>Corse it does. Thats what dictionaries do, report what is used in enough numbers to matter.
>
>just accepted. You will also note that the entire article
>
>
>>uses "omelette".
>>
>>
>
>That is a lie, it clearly says that both are acceptable spellings.
>
>That is just more commonly seen.
>
>
>
>>Spelling is like an IQ test
>>
>>
>
>Nothing like in fact.
>
>and most people score an
>
>
>>epic fail.
>>
Could you please repeat that in English?
Are you self taught?
Ah, phrase choice reveals another Rod Speed morphing. Buh bye.
That crossed my mind, but there was a fair amount more broken English
than he typically uses.
However, you are quite correct. The overall writing style is very
similar (plus the similar header information).
3877 is Rod Speed, too.