
The Building Blocks of Japanese Cuisine - Vigier
http://luckypeach.com/guides/building-blocks-japanese-cuisine/
======
rabboRubble
1 item forgotten in that list: fresh, tasty ingredients.

Japanese produce and meats are just fussed over to such a degree for which an
American consumer has no frame of reference.

The fruit and veg tend to be larger, less bruised / browned, and overall of
better taste. As ingredients this makes for better food. Perhaps less
commercialized farming? IDK.

They do spend a larger portion of their household income on groceries, so this
is part of the answer.

Edit: By "larger" I don't mean serving size, I mean natural size of the fruit
and veg. I lived in Japan for 15+ years. The produce there compared to the
produce in my US Trader Joe's, was larger. And tastier. I don't know how they
did it, because I too would have assumed that larger meant less tasty. Coming
back to the US and seeing scrawny fruit was a shock. I wonder if the US
producers are sending their largest / best overseas? Or perhaps TJ's and Fred
Meyer is buying B class produce?

~~~
wdewind
> Japanese produce and meats are just fussed over to such a degree for which
> an American consumer has no frame of reference.

The Japanese are famous for high quality Kobe beef, but the truth is most meat
in Japan is actually not very high quality at all and Kobe is a relatively
rare exception. Same with poultry. Most people don't want to believe it but,
despite all the McDonald's and factory farming, America has the best meat on
average, and at maximum too.

~~~
gkanai
> Same with poultry.

Not sure where you are getting your information- sources would back up your
claims.

Japanese restaurants can serve high-quality chicken raw. Japanese eggs are
eaten raw by a majority of Japanese. This would be unthinkable in the
salmonella-filled chicken foodstream of the US.

~~~
tptacek
Eggs are routinely eaten raw in the US as well, and pose a negligible risk of
salmonella.

Japan breeds special chickens for raw consumption; no matter how you raise
them, ordinary chickens --- including those eaten cooked in Japan --- are
nasty animals that will make you sick if not handled properly.

Even in ordinary chickens, intact whole muscles should be internally sterile
(it's the skin that's the problem on a trimmed chicken), so I wonder if part
of the deal with getting a license to serve chicken tartare or sashimi in
Japan is that there's a scald step or something to clear the surface bacteria.

I don't, like, know, or anything. I just like talking about chicken.

~~~
mattnumbe
>Japan breeds special chickens for raw consumption

Are you sure about this? I've always heard from izakaya owners here that it
has to do with the processing of the meat and the amount of time that has
passed since slaughter. It's also rarely seared when I get it.

~~~
tptacek
I'm not saying it's seared. Before you do a long cook sous vide, if you're
concerned about lactobacillus (which won't hurt you but will make your entire
product taste and smell like dirty socks), you can very quickly dunk whatever
you're cooking in boiling water to kill surface bacteria. Doing that has no
discernible impact on the texture or appearance of the meat (except it might
turn a thin layer of chicken flesh opaque).

I'm wondering if the raw chicken people might do something similar, since all
the pathogens they're concerned about will be on the surface.

------
camtarn
Might be better phrased as "the building blocks of high-end Japanese cuisine"
\- as the article says, its recommendations for products are far fancier than
even Japanese households use in their day-to-day cooking. But certainly an
interesting read - I did not know that Japanese fish sauce other than dashi
was even a thing, and the insight into the various varieties of soy sauce was
pretty cool.

------
dekobon
> The finest artisanal Japanese soy sauces are becoming known abroad as shoyu.

Good soy sauce is being called the Japanese word for soy sauce - shoyu (which
includes good and bad soy sauce)? If this is true, let's not encourage this
language to spread. This is too confusing.

~~~
logfromblammo
But you're okay with calling it "artisanal"?

I'd much rather have English steal yet another foreign word than to beat a
word out of its existing vocabulary into meaningless advertising nulls.

~~~
dekobon
Well, it is kind of like using the word ketchup to refer to only premium
ketchups in some other language. Whenever a person who speaks that language
says they enjoy ketchup, you wonder - what are they talking about.

As for artisanal, if there isn't an apprentice program for producing the good,
then it probably isn't artisanal. Interestingly, by this definition there are
artisanal soy sauces.

~~~
jacobolus
Funny enough, the word ketchup comes from Southeast Asian/southern Chinese
fermented fish sauce. After it became popular among European sailors after
1600, the word was coopted to refer to a wide variety of different sauces,
because Europeans didn’t have any idea how to make the original sauce. The
modern American ketchup is a descendent of a descendent of a cheap European
knockoff of expensive imported Chinese fish sauce. :-)

This lecture is great:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iYwUh1Hdho](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iYwUh1Hdho)

~~~
jnordwick
OMG! He speaks the truth!

[http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/24530/what-is-
the...](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/24530/what-is-the-
etymology-of-the-word-ketchup)

------
huac
Something I recently found out is that nearly all wasabi in America (and the
rest of the world) is fake - it's all horseradish and food coloring.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasabi#Surrogates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasabi#Surrogates)

~~~
gkanai
Indeed. Unless they are grating the wasabi in front of you, you should assume
it is colored horseradish. (Unless you're at a 2 or 3 Michelin-starred sushi
restaurant in Japan- then it's real wasabi.)

~~~
mikekchar
Real wasabi is amazing. I live in Shizuoka prefecture, so I have ready access
to it. In Japanese they call it "hon wasabi" (or root wasabi). The taste
varies considerably over the season, but in the winter it is especially sweet.
I often eat it on its own (just grated) as an accompaniment to beer. It is not
nearly as hot as the horseradish/mustard substitutes, though most Japanese
people think I'm crazy until I invite them to try it.

In Shizuoka, anyway, hon wasabi is not so expensive. You can get a root from
between $5-10 US. That's enough for probably 10 servings. If you are at any
decent sushi restaurant/izakaya you will be given hon wasabi here. Even at
cheap kaiten (conveyor-belt) sushi restaurants you can usually order it for a
small price.

------
emodendroket
I'm really skeptical of the idea that one salt is at all distinguishable from
another.

~~~
crygin
The point of fancy salts is that they're not just NaCl -- sea salts, in
particular, have a lot of other trace minerals with their own flavors (to say
nothing of the texture -- generally not so important in flavoring a dish as in
finishing).

~~~
NikolaeVarius
The minerals themselves are completely irrelevant in taste. They're extremely
trace.

Once dissolved, the salt is completely undifferentiatable. The only difference
is that if sprinkled on top of food, the size/shape of the salt will change
how strong the salt taste is on the tongue and how long it lasts,

~~~
crygin
Here's an example of one study which found that other minerals play a role in
the salty taste perception itself, and also discusses the non-salty volatile
flavors present in different sea salts:
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2010....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2010.00317.x/abstract)

~~~
guitarbill
Eh, not sure this is a great study. First, n = 9. Also, I find the abstract
really obtusely written:

> [...] three sea salts had 30% less sodium compared to a reference table
> salt. [...] Salt solutions were evaluated on an equivalent weight and on an
> equivalent sodium content basis. [...] Salty taste intensity on an
> equivalent sodium basis was not different (P < 0.05), but time-intensity
> profiles for salty taste were distinct (P < 0.05).

So what they're saying is, some sea salts have extra minerals which in effect
lowers the sodium content per gram. But if you compare a sea salt solution to
a table salt solution with equal sodium, they taste equally as intense, but
sometimes for different lengths of time. So in other words, you need more sea
salt by weight to achieve the same intensity as table salt, but they didn't
want to say that.

EDIT: So the time-based intensity seems to mirror what NikolaeVarius said.

And then the "Practical Implications":

> There has been some controversy that sea salt may be healthier than table
> salts due to the presence of other minerals. This research demonstrates that
> sea salts harvested from different parts of the world have different mineral
> content and time-intensity profiles of salty taste. Due to the different
> time intensity profiles, it may be possible to use less of some sea salts to
> obtain the same salty taste as a food containing traditional salt but having
> a lower sodium content.

Unfortunately, I can't read the whole article because paywall, so I can't
evaluate how big the time-intensity effect is. For the "salty taste"
intensity, they've shown this isn't true. And honestly, that wording wouldn't
even fly on Wikipeda, "[t]here has been some controversy". Wow.

(Also interesting that the two authors are both called Drake.)

------
wyager
This article falls into the wine critic trap of using meaningless terms like
"round" to describe flavor.

If you want an example of really high-quality science-based treatment of
cooking, take a look at Modernist Cuisine. Minimal bullshit, plenty of
chemistry.

~~~
beat
And Modernist Cuisine falls into the usual failings of western reductionism -
if we can't measure it, it doesn't exist. That's nonsense.

It reminds me of back when I used to do homebrew hi-fi (influenced by the
Japanese, naturally). Once you start really _listening_ rather than measuring,
you start seeing the flaws of a measurement-driven system. For example, hi-fi
equipment is often marketed in terms of THD (total harmonic distortion). Is it
actually relevant? No. But it is _easy to measure_. Measuring the harmonic
content of a 1khz sine wave is even less musically relevant than measuring how
well a car drives at exactly 60mph in a straight line. It doesn't take into
account frequency range, balance, dynamics, phase shift, intermodulation, back
EMF from speakers (think about it - a speaker is not only a motor, it's also
an alternator, that absorbs mechanical sound energy in its suspension and
spits it back down the line as AC energy greatly delayed and distorted from
its original form, and the amp outputs have to absorb it), etc. THD is a
nonsense measurement. But _every_ manufacturer brags about their THD specs.

That's what happens when you use a measurement-driven, reductionist approach
to perception. You value what you measure, whether or not what you measure
explains what you observe.

~~~
xj9
You are measuring things too. If there wasn't a physical phenomena happening
you wouldn't experience anything! You are using different tools, but you are
doing the same thing as us "reductionist westerners".

~~~
CuriouslyC
While I don't think it was stated very clearly, the impression I got from the
grandparent poster was that in many cases metrics actually distract from the
thing we actually care about, in this case "how does it sound?" You can't
really represent that as a number, because in one case "rich resonant lows and
a warm sound" might be what you're after, while in another "crisp, distinct
highs, and extremely high fidelity" could be preferable, and it is the gestalt
that produces the aesthetic quality.

~~~
guitarbill
Except that psychology research constantly shows humans can't make consistent
assessments of these things (e.g. expensive stuff always "sounds/tastes/looks
better" simply because we "know" it's more expensive, even if it's the same as
the cheap version). That's the whole reason we use measurements...

------
state
As someone who has been cooking Japanese food at home for years, it's fun to
see this on the front page.

One thing worth noticing is that most of the items discussed in this article
are pretty tough to find in the US — even online, unless you read Japanese
(which I don't). Even here in California at your local Japanese grocery it's
quite tough. Finding a good source for Gyosho seems nearly impossible. I've
been dreaming about opening a Rainbow grocery or Bi Rite quality Japanese
grocery store. Don't see myself having the time for that in the near future...

On the other hand — the quality of produce from Hikari Farms [0,1] is really
fantastic. And Good Eggs will deliver it to my door!

0 - [https://www.ccof.org/members/hikari-farms-
llc](https://www.ccof.org/members/hikari-farms-llc) 1 -
[https://www.goodeggs.com/hikarifarms](https://www.goodeggs.com/hikarifarms)

~~~
jacobolus
Have you tried Tokyo Fish Market in Berkeley? (I don’t know much about
Japanese cooking, so I couldn’t advise you about specific ingredients.)

~~~
state
Somehow, no! Will check it out. Thanks!

------
Iv
Ok, I'll give you a trick if you want to make people believe you can cook
asian food: fry stuff (anything, really, can be meat, pasta, mushroom, rice,
potatoes, fish) and add soy sauce and garlic. Cooked garlic and soy sauce
smells good, tastes good and is the "asian" taste we identify as westerners.

------
zumu
Not enough mention of dashi, which is in everything. This article makes it
sound like it's only relevant when sold as a mixture with soy sauce.

Interesting information and anecdotes, but far from an overview of the
'Building Blocks of Japanese Cuisine'.

------
noelwelsh
I wanted to like this article---adding some new ideas to my cooking could be
fun---but it quickly descended into food snobbery (how one should eat sushi
properly etc.) and I checked out.

~~~
SamBam
> (how one should eat sushi properly etc.)

Missed this in the article. It only mentions sushi once, at the top, so not
sure exactly what you're referring to.

I think there is a difference between describing what makes something a
quality ingredient (" _Well-made miso should taste good. The salt and the
fermented beer-like notes should balance each other out_ ") vs telling people
how to eat something properly, and I didn't feel like I saw much of the
latter.

~~~
noelwelsh
My bad, it was the section on sashimi I was using as an example:

"For dipping sashimi: pour a small pool in the center of the soy sauce dish
rather than filling the whole surface of the dish. You can always add more.
(And please, no wasabi in the dish. Dab a bit on the slice of sashimi, and dip
a corner in the shoyu before eating. The shoyu is used to complement the fish
with a hint of salty roundness, but not as a full-on marinade or soak.)"

~~~
mikekchar
I'm not entirely sure why you think this is snobbery any more than describing
any correct cooking techniques. This passage is factually correct (apart from
the wasabi - with a caveat). Sushi is usually accompanied with delicate fish
and the sushi chef has to assume some things about how the person will eat it.
Obviously, you can eat your sushi any way you want just like you can cook an
omelette any way you want. But if you want to know what a typical french
omelette tastes like in France, you need to know how to prepare it. That the
last step in preparation for sushi is left up to the eater does not change
anything in my mind.

So if you are interested and are willing to set the snobbery issue aside, I
will tell you what I know. The reason that shoyu is not added to the fish
before it is served is because the salt can ruin the texture of the fish.
Actually a surprising amount of fish is pre-salted. When you go to a good
sushi restaurant, very frequently the chef will tell you to try something
without shoyu first. Some of it is obvious (like shimesaba), but there are
times when the chef has decided that the fish needs some pre-treatment which
includes salt. In that case you probably don't need any extra salt and he will
tell you.

Many people don't realise it, but sushi is actually the name of the vinegared
rice. Anything with this vinegared rice is sushi. You can have it in a bowl
and it is then called sushi meshi. There are many wonderful sushi donburis as
well. While it is tempting to think of the value of sushi as being the sashimi
perched on top, good sushi is all about the rice. Especially nigiri sushi
(where they form in in the hand and place something on top), the way it is
formed is crucial to the taste and texture.

That being said, it's quite important when eating good sushi _not_ to soak the
rice in shoyu. Of course it is up to you what you do, but I don't think it is
unusual to have a feeling that good sushi is being ruined any more than having
a very high quality steak and completely covering it in catsup (so you can no
longer taste the steak you ordered).

When you apply the shoyu, the normal technique is to invert the sushi so that
the sashimi is pointing mostly down and then to dip the edge into the shoyu.
This gives you enough salt to complement the flavour of the fish without
overpowering it. It also leaves the sushi (which the chef has spent a lifetime
perfecting) intact so that you can take advantage of its quality.

Wasabi is a tricky subject. In a very high quality sushi shop the chef will
put the correct amount of wasabi between the sushi and the fish. He will watch
you eat it and will be able to tell if he has judged the amount correctly. He
will adjust accordingly. In a high quality shop, there will be no wasabi
offered to be put in your shoyu (in my experience).

This is different from eating sashimi. With sashimi (without the sushi), you
get a plate of fish that is accompanied with condiments. The condiments can be
wasabi, ginger, sliced green oinion, types of seaweed, etc. You put what you
like in the shoyu and dip the sashimi into the shoyu. My wife criticises me
for making the wrong choices for what I put in my shoyu, but I live with it
;-)

If you go to a lower class sushi shop (where they are just shovelling out the
sushi), very frequently there will be _no_ wasabi between the sushi and the
fish. This is because they have no way to tell how much you will like. In this
case it is common to put wasabi in your shoyu. If you go to a _very_ bad sushi
place which is essentially using machines to put the sushi together, it's
often a good practice to take the fish off, put wasabi in the sushi, dip the
fish in shoyu and put it back on the sushi. This is because it is crappily put
together in the first place so you might as well take some care in
reassembling it.

If you go to a _very, very_ bad sushi restaurant, they will often put a lot of
wasabi (really hoseradish and mustard) between the sushi and the fish. This is
because the fish is off and they are trying to mask the flavour. I don't think
it is worth going to these places.

Hope this helps in understanding (my understanding of) the reasons for sushi
eating guidelines. I hope it doesn't _too_ snobby (except for the
recommendation not to eat at places that serve spoiled fish).

~~~
midgetjones
Thanks for taking the time to write up all these replies! I've learned a lot
this morning :)

------
draw_down
I really enjoyed this, thank you.

------
cpdean
you guys, japanese culture is ~omakase~

------
jnordwick
Alternate Title: _The Building Blocks of Japanese Food Snobbery_

~~~
contingencies
... in a California clickbait context

