Talk:Stir frying

It would be interesting to elaborate on the topic of "Wok Qi". The subject does sound intriquing but I always thought the secret was to buy good (fresh) cooking oil and to wait a little longer for the oil to get a little hotter in the wok (without causing a kitchen fire of course). Ariele 14:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Teflon non stick comments are erroneous and inappropriate.

Studies using FDA standard testing methods have found no detectable level of PFOA in Teflon® non-stick cookware.

PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), also known as C-8, is an essential processing aid used to make fluoropolymers--high performance plastics manufactured by a number of companies. PFOA is the carcinogenic (cancer-causing) element thought to be found in Teflon® brand non-stick coatings used for cooking.

A published, peer-reviewed study (April 2005) in Environmental Science & Technology found no PFOA in Teflon® cookware.

No PFOA was detected even when the cookware was scratched with a knife. Studies using FDA standard testing methods also found no detectable levels of PFOA in non-stick coatings used for cookware sold under the Teflon® brand. The Danish Technical Institute and China Academy of Inspection and Quarantine tested Teflon® cookware and did not detect PFOA.

Not all non-stick coatings are branded Teflon®.

Teflon® branded non-stick coatings are made solely by DuPont. Teflon® is a registered trademark. Temperature Safety Region for Cooking Products with Non-Stick Coatings

Significant decomposition of non-stick coatings will occur only when temperatures exceed about 660°F (349°C). The maximum temperature of the Cooking Master® heating element is 450°F (230°C), well below the non-stick coating safety threshold. In fact, the non-stick inner pot of the Cooking Master® will never reach more than 375°F (190°C).

For more information, visit www.TeflonIsSafe.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.238.18.232 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC).Reply

wow, I guess back in 2006 the corporate drones were a little more obvious about their whitewashing. --129.11.248.42 (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

This edit[1] on 19 Aug 2008 added the text: “The chao technique is similar to the Western concept of braising.” While braising is a common cooking technique in Chinese cuisine in the form of red cooking, it is almost diametrically opposed to stir-frying — low-heat and wet versus high-heat and dry. The cooking technique that stir-frying is closest to is sautéing. The final paragraph of the “Chao technique” section might have confused matters somewhat with its statement that “[s]ome dishes that require more time are cooked by adding a few dashes of water after the stirring. Then the wok is covered with a lid.” This is a technique that is sometimes used to deal with things that don't stir-fry well. Western broccoli, because it doesn't make good contact with the wok and because it absorbs large amounts of oil, is sometimes cooked through this partial-steaming technique or gets separately cooked purely through blanching/steaming before being added to a dish. — VulcanOfWalden (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The entire "Effects on food" section is a verbatim copy of the abstract cited in the footnote. This is a copyright violation, so we need to rephrase that content if we want to keep it. I'm very busy with other things these days, so maybe someone could take care of this? Madalibi (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done. Thanks for the 'taitou'. ch (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, ch! Madalibi (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I can find no other references to the 3 variations of stirfry, other than the linked blog used as a source. Unless someone can find another source for these specific terms, I feel this should be removed. The sentence in question follows. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Broadly speaking, there are 3 variations to modern stir-frying. These variations are: plain stir-fry (qing chao 清炒), moist stir-fry (hua chao 滑炒) and dry wok stir-fry (bian chao 煸炒"

Good thought. I looked through a few other sources and now that you bring it up, it's possible that somebody will find some source, but I think you are probably right. ch (talk)

@NickPenguin and CWH: Yes, good point! Wilkinson's Chinese History: A New Manual (2012: p. 459) points out that by the Qing dynasty (1644-1912), chao was differentiated into five different methods: "stir-frying with raw ingredients" (shengchao 生炒 or zhichao 直炒) [lit., "raw chao" or "direct chao"], "stir-frying with cooked ingredients" (shuchao 熟炒) ["cooked chao"], "slow stir-frying" (xiaochao 小炒 or suichao 随炒) ["little chao" or "laissez-faire chao"], quick stir-frying (dachao 大炒) ["big chao], and "stir-frying on a high flame; typical of Shandong cuisine" (baochao 爆炒). The fifth one hints to the origin of what our article calls the "bào technique".

As for the three techniques, qing chao (so-called "plain stir-fry") is "plain" as yoghurt is plain: it's stir-fry with oil, a bit of salt, and sometimes MSG. On Chinese restaurant menus, bian chao is usually called gan bian ("dry bian"), and it's always spicy. Hua chao means literally "slippery chao", but I'm not familiar with it, and it's not in my regular dictionaries. Wilkinson points to a Chinese culinary dictionary that defines "450 cooking verbs [!], including 36 different types of stir-frying", so we shouldn't be surprised to find all these variants.

But as much as I like to be technical and specific, I think we should avoid explaining too many Chinese words, because that will just confuse our readers. On the other hand, we should definitely borrow from these words' definitions to explain that stir-frying can be done with raw or cooked ingredients and dry or "wet" ingredients, that it can be done on a low fire or a high flame, with animal fat or vegetable oil, etc. That way we get some of the technical distinctions without being burdened by the terminology. What do you think? Madalibi (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I guess I am concerned about these variations being notable. To draw a parallel example, sometimes when I cook pasta, I add a little bit of oil to the water. Other times I add a bit of salt, and on some occasions I add both oil and salt. Does this constitute 4 different techniques that should be named in an article, or is this just cooking? Is the grammar of Chinese such that adding a descriptor verb creates a new "word" or term? (not a linguist) If so, then we should mention that phenomenon, and we should cover the specific techniques we can find multiple sources for. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 12:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

@NickPenguin and Madalibi:. Nick Penguin's point and Madalibi's reservations strike me as important. So I would suggest putting the material from Wilkinson in the History section, not in the lede. This would be like an article on pasta mentioning linguine, farfalle, ditalini, capellini, etc. It's interesting from a meta point-of-view that one form of cooking in the wok (chao) has become the defining word in English. It's beyond what a Wikipedia article needs to cover, but I'd like to know how cookbooks in Chinese describe the various techniques. BTW, I just finished an article, Chinese History: A New Manual, which you might want to visit and tweak. ch (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

@NickPenguin and CWH: I guess we all agree, actually. If several reliable sources discuss a particular Chinese term for stir frying, then by all means let's mention that term explicitly and explain what it means! As for the lead, it should summarize the content of the article (see WP:LEAD), so I think it should contain a short paragraph on the history of stir frying, but indeed without all the details about types of stir frying in the Qing dynasty! Madalibi (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

@NickPenguin, CWH, and Madalibi: I think it's still a bit heavy on the matter of how to properly translate the terminology. For instance, the section on Wok hei begins with a discussion (in parentheses) about transcription vs. literal vs. metaphoric vs. partial translation. That section, by the way, is a subsection of Chao technique, but wok hei's relation to chao is not established anywhere in the article - which brings us back to the issue of how many techniques are there and how is this reflected in terminology. Finnusertop (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Originally the intro ended with this last sentence: Cantonese restaurant patrons judge a chef's ability to perform stir frying by the "wok hei" produced in the food. This in turn is believed to display their ability to bring out the aroma of the wok and essence of the food cooking. At the time, it seemed like wok hei was part of the chao technique, so I just coped and pasted most of the section from the wok article. Truthfully I really didn't look into it too carefully. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 06:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Seems to me that removing mention of the different techniques was a mistake. I often find references to some of these differences online by professional chefs as well as in Chinese cookbooks. Rather than simply removing information because it wasn't referenced, a more serious editor would try to investigate the matter and find a reference if there's one to be found. – ishwar  (speak) 18:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is the current standard for this warning to be at the top of the page? I think it would look nicer if the image was first, then the chinese cuisine portal, then the text warning template. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, this is the usual order see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead_section#Elements_of_the_lead. Foreign character warning boxes are to come directly before images. Zell Faze (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'd say it's customary, unless there are strong layout reasons for not doing so, esthetic ones in this case. Furthermore, it so happens that the "Chinese Cuisine" template has an image with Chinese characters in it, so that the effect of the text warning box on the attention of the reader about Chinese characters is enhanced by placing it there. ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it would be more effective the way Nick P suggests. ch (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Support the change. It looks like someone was bold and already took care of it and it looks much nicer. I think this is one of those reasonable exception cases. Zell Faze (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's good to represent both the health claims and the down side of stir fry, but I'm worried about how to strike a balance and represent views in proportion. Three references to the internet abstracts of single studies of bamboo shoots and broccoli strike me as out of balance, and may give the impression of drawing big conclusions from small samples. Also, we have only lightweight references to the health benefits. I will dig out my Joyce Chen cookbook and find a quote from Paul Dudley White, a heart specialist, but feel free to add or replace it with a better one. ch (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree the current coverage, while improved in the last day, generally shows only once side of the nutritional and health effects of stir frying. I think we would have to do some deeper digging to get a well rounded presentation, the initial sources I found presented negative views, or would constitute "folk nutrition", in my mind. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have restored the B-class checklists in the TAFI banner. If the article is assessed as passing all the B-class criteria, then, at least for WP:TAFI, it should be rated B-class. @Zellfaze: If you do not think the article is at B-Class, could you please state which of criteria this version of the article fails? Thanks, Evad37 [talk] 04:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The current article only discusses stir frying in China and the West. What about other non-Western cultures, e.g. Japan, Vietnam, or Thailand? I don't have the expertise to actually write such a section, but it does seem to me that it is missing. IAmNitpicking (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that there are contradictory claims about stir frying and fuel usage in the article. The introduction implies that one reason that stir frying was traditionally less common than boiling or steaming was that it required more fuel; however, in the "In China" section it states that stir frying requires less fuel than these methods, and that scarcity of fuel was a factor in stir frying's increasing popularity. My own understanding is that the latter is correct, but I don't have access to the source that's cited in the introduction in order to check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.255.135 (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not very used to editing Wikipedia, so I thought I might post here to make sure I'm on base in my thinking. The third paragraph of this article sounds like a bizarre advertisement for a technique which is neither inherently healthy nor unhealthy. The wording of "skillful use of vegetables..." just sounds so awkward. It also admits within the paragraph itself that stir fries are only healthy if fat and calories are kept at a reasonable level. This makes it sound to me like it's saying that only healthy stir fries are healthy, making it ultimately pointless. Besides this, I don't think it's usually Wikipedia's job to say whether a cooking technique is or is not healthy, at least not in the beginning. For example, the deep frying page for Wikipedia has a section on health, but does not mention it in the beginning. Maybe it's appropriate, but seemed a bit out of place. BaileyJorgensen (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Be bold and improve the paragraph. I for one agree with your criticisms. If health were indeed a reason for popularity that would be worth mentioning, but as you say it isn't really supported by a reference. IAmNitpicking (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

At no point in the article does it say what sort of oil is used during this "high heat" cooking. I suspect it is something like vegetable oil or something else? ZL3XD (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply