Apparently I am the only person in the world who doesn't like Cook's Illustrated. I got a couple free sample issues because I subscribe to other cooking-related things (like Cooking Light), but there are a few major problems I have with it. Number one is that it's so analytical it kind of takes the fun out of making a new, totally unknown recipe. Number two is that most of their recipes are not the type of cooking I do or the type of recipes I make (I am very much not a meat and potatoes person, and I almost never make a main meat dish with some vegetable sides for dinner). Number three is that the one time I actually tried making one of their recipes (it was brownies), Ben and I ended up saying, how the heck did they decide these were the best possible brownies? Martha Stewart's brownies are way better.
Actually in general I find that if I plan to cook either a meat-and-potatoes type meal, or I plan to cook something particularly unhealthy (which is about 90% of the recipes in 90% of the cooking magazines IMO), Martha Stewart is usually a good bet. I don't think I've ever made a recipe from her magazine that wasn't decadent and delicious. (This is why I only use her recipes once or twice a year.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-04-16 01:05 pm (UTC)Actually in general I find that if I plan to cook either a meat-and-potatoes type meal, or I plan to cook something particularly unhealthy (which is about 90% of the recipes in 90% of the cooking magazines IMO), Martha Stewart is usually a good bet. I don't think I've ever made a recipe from her magazine that wasn't decadent and delicious. (This is why I only use her recipes once or twice a year.)