On Feb 18, 11:43 pm, Greg Esres > wrote:
> Are the testers trained cooks or just amateurs? Although I love the
> magazine, I have trouble believing the story behind their arrival at
> some recipes. For instance, there was one article about how
> "research" suggested that beating softened butter with sugar was
> making their cookies puffy. And another about how they had to invent
> the idea of a two-level fire on a grill. I mean, these are basic
> concepts. I suspect that the author of the story was taking great
> liberties with the facts in order to make it sound more like an
> adventure.

Agreed.

I also love Cooks Illustrated, and their "Best Of" cookbook is
exceptional.

That said...

Sometimes I feel that their obsession with making 'the perfect x' (be
it roast chicken, pot roast or, even dumplings) is a little
ridiculous.

I'm reminded of 'Consumer Reports', another publication I hold in high
regard, where (with regard to culinary matters) the editors are trying
to find 'the best', by some quantitative metric.

My problem with Cooks's is that there's no room left for subjectivity:
sometimes, the best roast chicken is the way your mom made it--period.

So are they trained chefs? Does it matter?

And more importantly, does it taste good?

-a