Cooking Light's New Math

[rissole]

I made the Superfast Salisbury Steak this past weekend from the J/F issue. As far as taste goes, it's good but not outstanding. As far as speed goes, it's pretty easy and worth a try.

My question is how CL came up with the cooking time. I'm posting this from work, so I can't remember exactly, but the cooking time is listed at the top of the recipe as either 18 or 19 minutes. Well, it takes 6 minutes to cook the patties (3 minutes on each side), 10 minutes to simmer the mixture covered, and 10 minutes to simmer it uncovered. Shouldn't that be 26 minutes in all? Did anyone else notice this?

I also have a problem with the name of the recipe. This recipe is pretty fast, but my idea of "superfast" is under 15 or 20 minutes!!

[Leanne]

You are right - I just read the recipe on the website - here's the link. http://www.cookinglight.com/articles/get_recipe.asp?rID=12487&AreaID=5

It adds up to 26 minutes, like you said.

[Marcie]

I just read your post after responding with this note in the Jan/Feb reviews thread. Luckily, 26+ mins cooking time is still reasonable and the recipe is worth it. A good "pantry dinner" to keep in mind - you don't even have to have an onion handy!

[Michael Smith]

I just posted something under the tech support bb on the topic of prep time. What exactly is it a measure of versus the cooking time? They should publish the official "Cooking Light Handy Timing Formula" to translate their time into our time!

Perhaps they left out the part about hiring two assistant chefs to multi-task so that the minutes overlap. Otherwise I must conclude that their chefs have as many arms as Vishnu.

[rissole]

Originally posted by Marcie:
I just read your post after responding with this note in the Jan/Feb reviews thread. Luckily, 26+ mins cooking time is still reasonable and the recipe is worth it. A good "pantry dinner" to keep in mind - you don't even have to have an onion handy!

Marcie, I agree with you that the cooking time is reasonable and that the recipe is worth making. I just don't think it should have been called "*super*fast." So many magazines tout their recipes as "super easy," etc., and quite often those recipes don't live up to the description. I think a better name would have been "Quick Salisbury Steak" rather than "Superfast Salisbury Steak." It takes a lot to deserve that "super" part. http://www.cookinglight.com/bbs/smile.gif

[rissole]

Originally posted by Michael Smith:
I just posted something under the tech support bb on the topic of prep time. What exactly is it a measure of versus the cooking time? They should publish the official "Cooking Light Handy Timing Formula" to translate their time into our time!

Perhaps they left out the part about hiring two assistant chefs to multi-task so that the minutes overlap. Otherwise I must conclude that their chefs have as many arms as Vishnu.

I would assume the preparation time refers to the task of assembling and shaping the patties, opening the various containers and pouring in the liquids, etc. You are so right about the "multitasking" part. I can never come close to matching their prep times. I guess they should list two prep times: Ideal Prep Time and Human Prep Time. http://www.cookinglight.com/bbs/wink.gif

[lisad]

Folks--
Good eyes! Yep, we goofed on this one. Actually, it's kind of interesting how this happened. After recipes are tested (and usually double- and triple-tested, especially when they're cover recipes), prep and cook times are recorded. Then, the food editors decide which recipes to photograph for the magazine, so the Test Kitchen makes them AGAIN. Sometimes, during photo, we discover that the recipe needs to be tweaked somehow--it needs a garnish, needs more sauce or gravy, or something. Any changes are noted and added to the recipe. Or at least, that's what happens MOST of the time. In this case, during photo, they discovered that that the sauce was really too thin. So they added extra cook time so the sauce would reduce and thicken. Somehow, that step was added to the recipe but the prep and cook time weren't recalculated. These kinds of things happen at the last minute, so the editors were probably in a crunch. Regardless, the true total time is 31 minutes--pretty darn fast. And the recipe is still yummy!
Hope this helps, and thanks for your feedback.
Lisa Delaney,
Editor, CookingLight.com

[ElinorC]

We thought the recipe was "yummy also" and will definitely repeat. The sauce was great and could be used with any meat.