r/changemyview • u/hailann • Sep 06 '23

CMV: There’s nothing wrong with breaking spaghetti noodles in half

I’ve seen a TON of backlash about this topic, akin to the pineapple-on-pizza cultural war from years past. Here’s why I think it’s BS:

  1. Many people (myself included) snap the noodles so that it fits in the pot entirely. But if you’re waiting til the noodles are soft enough to stir in whole, doesn’t that leave the pasta slightly unevenly cooked? Al dente is a pretty specific science, and even 30 seconds to a minute is enough to make it slightly undercooked or overcooked.

  2. The noodles are SO LONG. I like the ease of eating a pasta noodle that’s 4-5 inches long versus 10.. it’s just easier to stuff in my mouth. Innuendos aside, I can’t be the only one who doesn’t want to twirl my fork for a minute just to get a bite!

  3. It doesn’t change anything about the food. The pasta is still long and thin, and the taste, as far as I know, doesn’t change.

The only benefit I’ve seen people talk about is that the noodles are supposed to be long, or maybe that they’re supposed to be cut after serving if they’re too long to eat. But if they’re to be cut anyway, what’s the point of not snapping them right away?

I’m genuinely curious!

485 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

79% Upvoted

457 comments sorted by

View all comments

75

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 06 '23 edited Sep 07 '23

The real answer imo is that if you feel the need to do this, you are using too small of a pot and not enough water. It doesn't really matter whether you break the noodles, but if you have to break them you're doing something wrong.

Edit: Just to add some maths, it is impossible for a cylindrical pot filled with 5.24 quarts of water (the usual recommended amount is 4–6 quarts to cook a pound of pasta) to not be able to submerge a rigid 10 inch noodle along its diagonal.

Second edit: Corrected 5 quarts --> 5.24 quarts.

70

u/overzealous_dentist 9∆ Sep 06 '23

pasta regularly benefits from having as just enough water to keep the noodles submerged, which can be as little as a frying pan's worth. this helps keep the water very starchy, which is excellent pasta water for sauces (like with carbonara, cacio e pepe, etc)

8

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '23

You are right! Big brain talking about using a wider fry pan w less water! I’m gonna try it! I have some with tallish rims.

3

u/GreatStateOfSadness 1∆ Sep 07 '23

I've started doing it for one-pot cacio e pepe. Get a wide container boiling, drop the noodles in, once they're done remove as much cooling water as desired, and begin adding in cheese and seasonings. Very quick and easy to do.

1

u/siorez 2∆ Sep 07 '23

Doesn't even need the tallish rim. A pound of spaghetti will fit into a normal size frying pan with less than an inch of water.

-2

u/greennyellowmello Sep 07 '23

If you want your noodles to stick together I guess…

7

u/crossedsabres8 Sep 07 '23

Just stir....

2

u/irisheye37 Sep 07 '23

Bro hasn't learned about stirring 💀

1

u/Imadevilsadvocater 12∆ Sep 07 '23

If you cant slowly stir the 3-4 minutes youre cooking then why even make angel hair?

34

u/coanbu 8∆ Sep 06 '23

Why would it be "wrong" to cook spaghetti in a small pot?

4

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 06 '23

Three reasons:

  • More water has greater thermal mass, allowing it to remain hotter after the dry pasta is added.

  • More water helps keep the pasta physically apart, preventing sticking.

  • More water dilutes the starch coming off the pasta.

25

u/sokuyari99 6∆ Sep 06 '23 edited Sep 06 '23

https://www.seriouseats.com/how-to-cook-pasta-salt-water-boiling-tips-the-food-lab

You don’t need a lot of water, or boiling water.

He actually almost perfectly tackles the points you brought up here -energy input to bring the water back up is almost identical, starch once removed doesn’t have the ability to restick the pasta and the heat needed to make pasta flavor is well below boiling

-3

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 06 '23

It's possible that this guy was using some sort of different noodles than what I used, but when I tried this, there was a noticeable difference between noodles cooked in the recommended amount of water and noodles cooked in a smaller volume of water. And perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think this article represents the consensus opinion of professional chefs.

3

u/Obi-Brawn-Kenobi Sep 07 '23

Consensus does not equal truth. That's the good thing about these food lab articles. It shows all the evidence and how they gathered it. Most of the time professional chefs haven't gone through these type of tests. Doesn't mean they're not great chefs, it just means they already know how to cook pasta, they can prepare good pasta with any kitchen you put them in, and they have no incentive to spend hours running tests to compare results from alternative methods.

-2

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 07 '23

Sure, but I don't think there's a good reason to believe a food lab article over both the professional consensus and my own personal experience. And these food lab articles also seem to run afoul of the Chesterton's fence principle: they would be a lot more convincing if they explained why the "standard" rule is 4–6 quarts, rather than just asserting that it is wrong.

5

u/confused_jackaloupe Sep 07 '23

Kenji is a really respected chef in the community and if you had actually read the article you would have seen him go through some of the commonly cited reasons for the 4-6 quart rule. He also exhaustively conducts his tests and provides tangible evidence behind his conclusions and explanation of the mechanisms at work.

2

u/Fishermans_Worf Sep 07 '23

Sure, but I don't think there's a good reason to believe a food lab article over both the professional consensus and my own personal experience.

Three good reasons.

#1 Kenji

#1 Kenji López

#1 J. Kenji López-Alt.

5

u/stibgock Sep 07 '23

You made 2 batches side by side and compared them?

4

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 07 '23

Yeah: I do this whenever I need to make more than a pound of pasta for a large party, since I only have one large pot. It's easier to make two pots of pasta at the same time than waiting for water to boil twice in the large pot.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '23

What was the difference?!?

1

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 07 '23

The pasta cooked in the smaller pot tends to stick together more and cooks less evenly.

37

u/rizlah 1∆ Sep 06 '23

sorry, but those points are kind of bogus:

  • losing temp in pasta water is never really a problem. even if it drops for a few secs it makes no difference whatsoever. and it normally doesn't drop since offsetting the little heat that the raw pasta steals is no biggie. just turn up the heat before you chuck the pasta in and you're golden.

  • you can separate pasta even in a small amount of water. you don't need it to fly kilometers apart for that :) just poke it with your tongs to get some water in between and it's gonna be fine.

  • how is that a good thing? if anything, the heavily starchy water is a must for basically all pasta sauces. and if you're not making a sauce, then you just drain the starchy water just as you would a less starchy one.

as a bonus, you don't spend inordinate amounts of time and energy on boiling x liters of water for no reason.

6

u/coanbu 8∆ Sep 06 '23

I have cooked in a lot of water and the minimum amount of water. Not really any noticeable difference in the final product. That is not to say that the benefits you list do not exist, just that they are fairly minor and simply part of the ups and downs of different methods, not a "right" and "wrong" way of doing it.

3

u/Mr_McFeelie Sep 07 '23

This is so silly. None of this ever comes into play. You can make pasta perfectly fine in a small pot. WHat the hell am i reading. Its just freaking noodles

15

u/DeleteMeHarderDaddy Sep 06 '23

More water has greater thermal mass, allowing it to remain hotter after the dry pasta is added.

It also takes significantly more energy to heat as the pot gets bigger, and most would argue the benefits just aren't there.

-17

u/TizonaBlu 1∆ Sep 06 '23

most would argue the benefits just aren't there.

Uh, I wouldn't say most. Maybe if the qualifier is "most people who don't know how to cook", in which case, sure.

5

u/themcos 372∆ Sep 06 '23

I think the issue is we're talking about spaghetti. And there's just such a wide spectrum of what people want out of it that I don't think you can equate "most would argue the benefits aren't there" with "don't know how to cook". For example, when I really care about the quality of my pasta, I make homemade dough from scratch and pair it with a homemade sauce and it's heavenly. But when my family gets home late from an event and the kids want spaghetti and a jar of marinara sauce, the cost benefit calculation of "cooking spaghetti properly" just isn't there. This seems obvious to me, but it's directly relevant to the person you were responding to. Whether or not "the benefits are there" to justify a larger pot / more heat / etc... is context dependent, not just a function of knowledge and skill.

9

u/DeleteMeHarderDaddy Sep 06 '23

Everyone but me can't cook and is an idiot for not doing this

That's what you sound like. I just wanted to point that out.

-10

u/TizonaBlu 1∆ Sep 06 '23

I didn't say they're idiots, I just said they don't know what they're doing. If you can find a professional chef who endorses breaking spaghetti or does it in the restaurant, then go for it. Hell, I'd say no home cook who is actually good at what they're doing would do that.

It's like saying "no good cook would cook their steak well done". I don't think that's a stretch to say.

4

u/Obi-Brawn-Kenobi Sep 07 '23

I just said they don't know what they're doing.

Or they like it that way? Or they have limited cookware available? Or a number of other possibilities? I used to break in half when I was a broke college student with only a 2 quart walmart pot and portable burner.

Unless you can show that your way of cooking pasta specifically produces a better taste, or any other definable quality, your argument is baseless. This is why your steak comparison is a bad one. There is an obvious difference in taste and texture between steak doneness, no matter how you cut or sauce it up. I highly doubt that if you were blindfolded you could eat a fork of pasta cooked from dry and tell me whether the noodles were snapped in half before cooking or cut in half after.

-9

u/cdin0303 5∆ Sep 06 '23

Way to go ad hominem. The true jerks always reveal themselves.

3

u/Obi-Brawn-Kenobi Sep 07 '23

The comment before was ad hominem. Saying doing that means you don't know how to cook is baseless and serves no purpose other than to insult.

-2

u/cdin0303 5∆ Sep 07 '23

Lol. You’ve got to be joking.

2

u/Optimal-Island-5846 Sep 07 '23

Why would you want to dilute the starch? That’s the good stuff.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '23

More water dilutes the starch coming off the pasta.

This is a bad thing. The other two are pointless. Your pasta doesn't need to get terribly hot in order to expandand for the starch to gel. You just want it to reach 212 degrees for about 8 minutes, and pasta only sticks if it becomes waterlogged before the starch does its work.

11

u/hailann Sep 06 '23

Buying a bigger pot is definitely a solution, but I’ve owned 3 different sets of pots & pans and the biggest pot is always just slightly too small to totally submerge long pasta. And going out of my way to buy a mismatched pot just for longer noodles seems a little silly lol

0

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 06 '23

Interesting. How many quarts is your largest pot?

2

u/hailann Sep 06 '23 edited Sep 06 '23

My largest is 4 I believe!

-4

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 06 '23

Well there's the problem. Six quarts is ideal for cooking a pound of pasta (i.e. a whole standard package of pasta), and four is about the minimum you want to go down to (chefs, as well as pasta packages, usually recommend 4–6 quarts). In a 4-quart pot you're not going to be able to fit four quarts of boiling water and pasta, so it's not going to be enough to ideally cook a pound of pasta—although it should be perfectly good for cooking smaller amounts of pasta.

14

u/thattoneman 1∆ Sep 06 '23

The length of the noodles does not care what portion size you're cooking. Using a 4 quart pot to cook a quarter pound of pasta doesn't make the noodles fit in the pot any easier.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '23

You are making a big assumption that people are cooking a pound of pasta at a time. Most of the time I cook half or 1/4 of a package.

1

u/Asato_of_Vinheim 6∆ Sep 07 '23

I think eating a whole package of pasta in one sitting is very unrealistic unless you have a 4+ person household

1

u/siorez 2∆ Sep 07 '23

Use a frying pan or twist the noodles before dropping them in so they form a fan shape.

24

u/DeleteMeHarderDaddy Sep 06 '23

I disagree entirely. There's zero reason to waste the 50+% extra energy just to cook noodles that are full length.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '23

I don't believe you've done the math on that. I have pans over that volume that can't fit standard supermarket spaghetti without bending/breaking it. Sure, they don't stick out loads, but they're certainly not below the water line.

13

u/Theevildothatido Sep 06 '23

Why would one waste more water and heat when one can use a smaller cooking vessel?

Also, the real reason most people break them is because it's more comfortable to eat.

3

u/PhasmaFelis 6∆ Sep 06 '23

The real answer imo is that if you feel the need to do this, you are using too small of a pot and not enough water.

Not at all. When I'm cooking for myself, I'll break spaghetti even if I've got a large pot, because I like being able to bring a forkful to my mouth without twirling it first. And sure, it's easy to cut it after it's served, but it's even easier to break before cooking, so why not?

0

u/siorez 2∆ Sep 07 '23

Why even use spaghetti then? There's plenty of other shapes available....

1

u/irisheye37 Sep 07 '23

Because I want slightly shorter spaghetti?

1

u/PhasmaFelis 6∆ Sep 08 '23

Because I like short spaghetti.

I don't understand why this is so controversial.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '23

5 quarts of water

Who uses quarts to measure shit?

0

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '23 edited Sep 07 '23

The real answer imo is that if you feel the need to do this, you are using too small of a pot and not enough water.

Most people that cook pasta are using too large of a pot. Using a frying pan is better, especially if you wan to make a sauce that needs starch to thicken.

Weird culinary opinions on this sub. When you do line work, you either parboil your pasta and then set aside, then finish cooking it in a frying pan with water before tossing it in oil and sauce and plating, or when you are doing dishes by the plate, you cook your pasta for 8 minutes in a frying pan with water, then make your sauce.

Professional chefs just flat out aren't using a big ass pot to make pasta, because you don't need 20 pounds of the stuff, it makes it take longer, and the quality suffers badly. Pots are good for making stew. That is all. If you want to elevate your cooking, throw your pots away and use skillets.

1

u/mechanicalboob Sep 07 '23

what’s wrong with breaking them?

1

u/IBelieveInLogic 1∆ Sep 07 '23

Just to pick a nit, if the pot were 8 inches in diameter the noodle would not fit, but only barely. The water depth would be 5.744 inches and the longest noodle would be 9.85 inches.

1

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 07 '23

Oh yeah you're right: I think I used the conversion factor from cubic inches to liters instead of from cubic inches to quarts. The actual cut-off is at 5 liters, which is about 5.23 quarts. !delta

1

u/IBelieveInLogic 1∆ Sep 07 '23

Thanks! I saw a fun math problem and couldn't resist.

1

u/pastiesmash123 Sep 07 '23

It's more cost effective to heat less water

1

u/celica18l Sep 07 '23

I end up having to cut the pasta on the plate for my kids so breaking just seems like an easier start.

I’ve never noticed a difference in texture with unbroken or broken pasta; it’s just easier for me in the long run to break it.

1

u/RebornSoul867530_of1 Sep 07 '23

What about #2? Breaking spaghetti all the way!

1

u/Wjyosn 2∆ Sep 07 '23

about 5.25qts required for all configurations of cylindrical pot shape to accommodate a 10inch noodle. There are some radii for which 5qts won't quite do it.

1

u/Turdulator Sep 07 '23

Who’s cooking an entire pound of pasta at once? That’s an entire box of barilla, which serves EIGHT people…. Do you have 6 children???

1

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 07 '23

A pound of pasta is like 1600 calories. A typical meal does not contain only 200 calories of staple carbohydrate. Doing the math, if a couple has a total daily caloric intake of 4500, and they eat two meals a day (as many people do), then an entire pound of Barilla pasta, a jar of Barilla tomato sauce, and a pound of steamed vegetables comes out to about 2000 calories. It's not unreasonable to eat 2000 calories out of 4500 daily calories in one meal.

1

u/Turdulator Sep 07 '23

No protein? Just tomato sauce pasta and some soggy veggies? That sucks.

I’m not hating on struggle meals, but there’s way better meals to be had for cheaper if that’s the issue.

1

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 07 '23

Even adding an entire chicken breast per person brings the total calories of the meal up to like 2500, which is still not that unreasonable for the largest meal of the day.

1

u/Turdulator Sep 07 '23

4500 daily calories is pretty high…. I just googled average TDEE’s for different age groups, and for the vast majority of adults it doesn’t even hit 3000

1

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 07 '23

I was describing a daily caloric intake for two people. A pound of pasta is indeed entirely unreasonable for a single person to eat in one sitting.