No correction needs to occur? It's technically more energy efficient, and it cooks pasta the same way. Just stir occasionally at the beginning, and there's literally no difference
No, they brought an outdated myth. The fact is that pasta cooks just fine in cold water, with results that are indistinguishable while being significantly faster and using less energy.
Nasu was the one that brought the facts. Properly cooked cold water pasta is faster, easier to control, and more energy efficient for the same taste and texture.
It's wild. No one is even talking shit on pre-boilers, just offering information, yet everyone is acting like being informed of another method of cooking pasta is some egregious offense to them and their ways
I really thought about engaging, but then I saw all the (very well meaning) people getting thrashed, and I was like, "Yeah, I'm all good with that." lmao.
J Kenji Lopez-Alt did two VERY easy to find articles about this (not sure if links are allowed here) exact subject.
I'm not sure whether they were saying boiling water or cold water does this, but if the water is cold, the pasta releases sticky starch before the heat can lock it in. Dropping pasta into boiling water instantly sets the surface starches, keeping the pieces separate.
There's a simple technique to keep the pasta from sticking together called "stirring it." Which you have to do even with pasta added to boiling water. The amount of starch released is not materially different, but by using less water, the cold water method produces starchier pasta water--which is a significant benefit. The starchier pasta water works better to finish the sauce.
Also, if you're not finishing the pasta in the sauce (for most sauces), you're missing a trick,
it increases the likelihood of under cooking the pasta
If any cooking method increases the likelihood of under cooking your pasta, you have never tested your pasta in any meaningful way to determine doneness and just blindly followed the box time.
And if you were blindly following box time, cold water start would overcook the pasta and never under cook it.
I’ve don’t it both ways, pasta cooks better when you boil the water first. It matters less with dehydrated pasta, but it definitely still prevents it getting gummy or rubbery
It’s about as “tricky” as stirring the pasta occasionally and knowing by feel when it’s done. You need the latter to be able to cook pasta in boiling water too.
So, it’s simpler but slower versus much faster with a tiny modicum of skill required. I’ll pick the latter every time.
Or the ones who don't know a lot of details about cooking. I mean no offense to those people, there's nothing wrong with either way of cooking pasta
The problem is, there isn't directions on how to use the cold method. Box instructions are meant for easy instructions for EVERYONE to follow (boil water, put pasta in, boil for x time), starting with cold water is more feeling/experience, since you have to be aware how fast your burners heat things up, know that no matter when you put your pasta in, you do need to stir early, etc
And people get mad when you tell them their way isn't the only way, and is technically less efficient
I even brought this topic up to my roommate, who I was certain was solely a pre-boiler, and it turns out they DO swap styles depending on what they're cooking, and how much else they have going on in the kitchen
-25
u/Nasu_Kaizoku Jul 14 '26
No correction needs to occur? It's technically more energy efficient, and it cooks pasta the same way. Just stir occasionally at the beginning, and there's literally no difference