Why is it faster to reheat something than it is to cook it?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







26















In my experience it takes less time to reheated a cooked item than it is to cook it. This is true for every single different "type" of cooked item I can think of. (Meat, soup, pasta, beans, etc etc).



It's quite common for my to use the microwave to reheat things, and that might lead me to be biased in thinking that it's faster because the microwave itself is often the fastest way top reheat something, but this observation isn't just for microwaving. It doesn't even seem to matter on the method of reheating, as I can reheat something faster if I use the same method of as I did to cook it (e.g. by frying).



Note that I always check the temperature of something I've reheated via a food-probe, so I'm also not making a mistaking of cooking something to 70C and then reheating to 45C etc.



So:




  1. Is it always faster to reheat something than it was to cook it, or are their exceptions?


  2. why is food faster to reheat? What's the food-science behind it?










share|improve this question


















  • 1





    Note: Googling this question just results in endless results of people asking how to reheat food X. I don't know if I'm a google bubble or if no-one out there has asked this question before? If I were to guess I'd say it's because you need more energy to do whatever it is that happens to proteins/starch when they cook, and one that's done you need less energy to simply heat it. Or something?

    – Pod
    Apr 18 at 13:26


















26















In my experience it takes less time to reheated a cooked item than it is to cook it. This is true for every single different "type" of cooked item I can think of. (Meat, soup, pasta, beans, etc etc).



It's quite common for my to use the microwave to reheat things, and that might lead me to be biased in thinking that it's faster because the microwave itself is often the fastest way top reheat something, but this observation isn't just for microwaving. It doesn't even seem to matter on the method of reheating, as I can reheat something faster if I use the same method of as I did to cook it (e.g. by frying).



Note that I always check the temperature of something I've reheated via a food-probe, so I'm also not making a mistaking of cooking something to 70C and then reheating to 45C etc.



So:




  1. Is it always faster to reheat something than it was to cook it, or are their exceptions?


  2. why is food faster to reheat? What's the food-science behind it?










share|improve this question


















  • 1





    Note: Googling this question just results in endless results of people asking how to reheat food X. I don't know if I'm a google bubble or if no-one out there has asked this question before? If I were to guess I'd say it's because you need more energy to do whatever it is that happens to proteins/starch when they cook, and one that's done you need less energy to simply heat it. Or something?

    – Pod
    Apr 18 at 13:26














26












26








26


6






In my experience it takes less time to reheated a cooked item than it is to cook it. This is true for every single different "type" of cooked item I can think of. (Meat, soup, pasta, beans, etc etc).



It's quite common for my to use the microwave to reheat things, and that might lead me to be biased in thinking that it's faster because the microwave itself is often the fastest way top reheat something, but this observation isn't just for microwaving. It doesn't even seem to matter on the method of reheating, as I can reheat something faster if I use the same method of as I did to cook it (e.g. by frying).



Note that I always check the temperature of something I've reheated via a food-probe, so I'm also not making a mistaking of cooking something to 70C and then reheating to 45C etc.



So:




  1. Is it always faster to reheat something than it was to cook it, or are their exceptions?


  2. why is food faster to reheat? What's the food-science behind it?










share|improve this question














In my experience it takes less time to reheated a cooked item than it is to cook it. This is true for every single different "type" of cooked item I can think of. (Meat, soup, pasta, beans, etc etc).



It's quite common for my to use the microwave to reheat things, and that might lead me to be biased in thinking that it's faster because the microwave itself is often the fastest way top reheat something, but this observation isn't just for microwaving. It doesn't even seem to matter on the method of reheating, as I can reheat something faster if I use the same method of as I did to cook it (e.g. by frying).



Note that I always check the temperature of something I've reheated via a food-probe, so I'm also not making a mistaking of cooking something to 70C and then reheating to 45C etc.



So:




  1. Is it always faster to reheat something than it was to cook it, or are their exceptions?


  2. why is food faster to reheat? What's the food-science behind it?







food-science reheating






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Apr 18 at 13:21









PodPod

295310




295310








  • 1





    Note: Googling this question just results in endless results of people asking how to reheat food X. I don't know if I'm a google bubble or if no-one out there has asked this question before? If I were to guess I'd say it's because you need more energy to do whatever it is that happens to proteins/starch when they cook, and one that's done you need less energy to simply heat it. Or something?

    – Pod
    Apr 18 at 13:26














  • 1





    Note: Googling this question just results in endless results of people asking how to reheat food X. I don't know if I'm a google bubble or if no-one out there has asked this question before? If I were to guess I'd say it's because you need more energy to do whatever it is that happens to proteins/starch when they cook, and one that's done you need less energy to simply heat it. Or something?

    – Pod
    Apr 18 at 13:26








1




1





Note: Googling this question just results in endless results of people asking how to reheat food X. I don't know if I'm a google bubble or if no-one out there has asked this question before? If I were to guess I'd say it's because you need more energy to do whatever it is that happens to proteins/starch when they cook, and one that's done you need less energy to simply heat it. Or something?

– Pod
Apr 18 at 13:26





Note: Googling this question just results in endless results of people asking how to reheat food X. I don't know if I'm a google bubble or if no-one out there has asked this question before? If I were to guess I'd say it's because you need more energy to do whatever it is that happens to proteins/starch when they cook, and one that's done you need less energy to simply heat it. Or something?

– Pod
Apr 18 at 13:26










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















51














"Cooking" is often a chemical process. Denaturing proteins, gelatinization, causing chemical reactions like browning, or even causing state changes like evaporation.



In many cases for these reactions to happen, we need to overheat the food. (Cook it and let it rest to cool off back down to undo some of the changes that were made and/or bring it back down to a reasonable temperature to eat). This is true when grilling meats, frying, baking bread, and lots of other types of cooking.



Other times, we need to bring something to temperature and hold it there for some period of time. This holds for extracting collagen, starch gelatinization (eg, cooking pasta, potatoes, etc.) but also just waiting for flavors to transfer in soups and similar dishes.



With warming, you're just adding enough heat to it to move it a few degrees, but you're not typically trying to change the state of the food, so less total energy is needed.



Now, it is always faster to reheat vs. cook things? For the most part it's true, but I suspect that there would be an edge case out there. Something that's cooked from room temperature, but then stored chilled and the chilling causes issues (like retrogradation in starches, maybe?) that make them more resist than reheating.






share|improve this answer



















  • 13





    I think your fourth paragraph should be highlighted more. That's the real answer to the question. Some of the heat energy is going into state changes, so it's not all being used to actually change the temperature of the food.

    – GentlePurpleRain
    Apr 18 at 14:48






  • 10





    To add to the last point, consider that reducing 100ml from a 1L pot of liquid requires evaporating that much water. Evaporating water requires an enormous amount of energy - for 100ml it works out to 226kJ of energy. If you were reheating the 900ml of liquid left, from 4C in the fridge to 70C (65C delta-T) for eating, you require 4.2J/gC, or about 250kJ. So reheating 900ml of cold soup takes the same amount of energy as reducing 100ml from 1L of soup which has already been heated to 100C. State changes consume large amounts of energy and cooking is all about state changes.

    – J...
    Apr 18 at 15:37






  • 4





    In addition to the fourth paragraph, (usually) when you cook some water will evaporate, meaning that when you reheat there's less water to warm up than when you cooked it in the first place, making it even faster to reach the temperature required.

    – Alexandre Aubrey
    Apr 18 at 16:13






  • 3





    @J...: are non-water state changes in cooking usually also endothermic? Maillard reaction? Breaking down collagen? Reactions can be exothermic but still not occur at room temperature (e.g. oxidation/combustion of wood), so requiring holding at higher temp doesn't prove that heat energy is going anywhere except being lost to the surrounding air / room, and carried off by evaporation except in a covered pot. Your example of reducing a liquid is a great example of a clearly endothermic process that's common in cooking, though.

    – Peter Cordes
    Apr 19 at 15:59








  • 3





    @PeterCordes Agreed. Putting a lid on the pot goes a long way, for example. Just containing the heat lost due to evaporation (and some negligible radiant cooling) you can leave a stew simmer on very low heat where it would have needed medium heat without a lid - clearly it's not the cooking reactions that are consuming the energy, as you say. I think it's probably safe to say that most energy lost in cooking is due to water evaporation, simply because water is ubiquitous in food and its enthalpy of vapourization is so ridiculously high.

    – J...
    Apr 19 at 17:53



















6














This is because when you're cooking some foods you're not just heating it up. A lot of foods are boiled, not because they need to be heated up, but because they need to absorb water. We just boil the water because that makes the hydration go a lot faster (the high temperature is also needed to break down some of the starches, for more info, see here).



With soup it should take about the same time, if you don't care about dissolving/softening the vegetables into the soup. That also takes time, with vegetables the chemical reaction involved is mainly breaking down the pectin that holds the cells of the vegetable together.



With meat, dissolving/denaturing the collagen (stuff that holds everything together) into gelatin also takes time. Also you want a different temperature for reheating than frying because with meat you want a nice crispy brown outside (Maillard reactions), and for that you need far higher temperatures than the inside of your meat.






share|improve this answer

































    2















    It doesn't even seem to matter on the method of reheating, as I can reheat something faster if I use the same method of as I did to cook it (e.g. by frying).



    Note that I always check the temperature of something I've reheated via a food-probe, so I'm also not making a mistaking of cooking something to 70C and then reheating to 45C etc.




    That is not strictly possible. If you are imparting the same amount of heat energy to the same thing at the same rate in the same controlled environment, then the resulting temperature must necessarily be identical.



    If you are ensuring a consistent overall temperature resulting from the same source, then the time difference arises because you are heating different things.



    One likely culprit would be water that escaped as steam during during cooking or evaporated during/after, which reduces the mass you are heating the second time around. Water is also one of the slowest things to heat, because it has one of the highest specific heat capacities amongst common substances. This alone would result in a very noticeable difference in many types of food.






    share|improve this answer
























    • Is raw chicken the "same thing" as cooked chicken?

      – Pod
      Apr 24 at 11:16











    • Nope. I would hope they're pretty easy to distinguish, otherwise you may get salmonella.

      – Matthew Read
      Apr 24 at 17:17



















    2














    Because heating up is merely rising the temperature of a body and how much its temperature change depends on its specific heat. The sane is for the complex mix of the various items in the pot as we are speaking about kitchen.



    Cooking involves a number of physical and chemica processes, each of which takes time. Is this taking time the major difference, that is why I've decided to add this answer alongside the others. They aren't wrong at all, just in a way incomplete. Cooking must be accomplished, and that will be the case anyway, see just here below.



    Most of these process require heat as well, that is energy must be given to the system. So the pot must stay on stove (or the meat on the grill, etc.) longer.



    Independent of this energy requirement, which for some chemical transformations can be even positive (ie the process releases energy and not vise versa), chemical reactions go faster higher the temperature is.
    For instance, pasta could be cooked at lower than boiling point, just it will take longer. This is why pressure cooking is somehow faster as well less energy consuming.



    edited.



    Specifically to question number 1, yes is at least in principle possible that a cooked item takes longer to be heat as compared to heat the original item. If cooking involved water intake, the specific heat of the cooked item might be bigger, for instance. An example is likely pasta. I would expect that it takes longer to bring a cooked spaghetto to 100 °C than doing it with a raw one. But this analysis is certainly out of the kitchen (fine measuring, ad hoc experiments, way of heating....), as probably we never put raw vs cooked spaghetti on a hot plate and measure how long it takes for them to reach the wanted T.






    share|improve this answer


























    • [the other answers] aren't wrong at all, just in a way incomplete I agree, but I also think your answer is incomplete! :) Is it possible to give some examples of a physical of chemical process that happens when cooking, but not when heating? e.g. converting raw chicken protein into cooked chicken protein?

      – Pod
      Apr 24 at 11:20






    • 1





      Pod. Happy that you get my point. The only thing that I don't understand of your comment is that I do not see how to get into heating without starting cooking as well. I could well denature egg proteins, or even an egg, but this happens from a certain T up. As far eadible items are taken as a whole, cooking requires heating, which can be semantic. Cheese affinage it is something else. I am satisfied that you understood the nuance, but @Echox say the same although in a more spartan way. I go up voting his/her A too. Tell me if I misunderstood your comment.

      – Alchimista
      Apr 25 at 6:40



















    0














    Does this question really call for a scientific explaination ?



    To cook, you heat something and let it stay hot until it get cooked.
    To heat, you just heat it a bit until you can eat it.



    So even it you want to eat it as hot as its cooking temperature (which you won't in most cases, with a good 100°C margin), you just ignore all the "cooking time" after you reached the right temperature.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      When you mention a 100C margin, I think you're talking about oven air temperature, not food temperature. If you stick a probe thermometer in your food and heat it to ~140 Celsius, you'll drive out all the water by boiling it off on the way to that temp, and proteins will break down leaving any meat basically inedible way beyond the point of overcooking to a crumbly dry disaster.

      – Peter Cordes
      Apr 19 at 15:52













    • Does this question really call for a scientific explaination ?. Yes, as that's what I'm interested in. Otherwise I would have asked "How do I heat up food?????".

      – Pod
      Apr 24 at 11:17








    • 1





      What I mean is that your original question can be translated as "Why is something that I heat for a long time takes longer than something I heat for a short time" and doesn't need any kind of physical or chemical explaination. But maybe what you really wanted to know is what happens when you cook something and why does it needs to stay at a certain temperature for a long time but then your questions would need editing.

      – Echox
      Apr 24 at 12:27












    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "49"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcooking.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f97547%2fwhy-is-it-faster-to-reheat-something-than-it-is-to-cook-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    51














    "Cooking" is often a chemical process. Denaturing proteins, gelatinization, causing chemical reactions like browning, or even causing state changes like evaporation.



    In many cases for these reactions to happen, we need to overheat the food. (Cook it and let it rest to cool off back down to undo some of the changes that were made and/or bring it back down to a reasonable temperature to eat). This is true when grilling meats, frying, baking bread, and lots of other types of cooking.



    Other times, we need to bring something to temperature and hold it there for some period of time. This holds for extracting collagen, starch gelatinization (eg, cooking pasta, potatoes, etc.) but also just waiting for flavors to transfer in soups and similar dishes.



    With warming, you're just adding enough heat to it to move it a few degrees, but you're not typically trying to change the state of the food, so less total energy is needed.



    Now, it is always faster to reheat vs. cook things? For the most part it's true, but I suspect that there would be an edge case out there. Something that's cooked from room temperature, but then stored chilled and the chilling causes issues (like retrogradation in starches, maybe?) that make them more resist than reheating.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 13





      I think your fourth paragraph should be highlighted more. That's the real answer to the question. Some of the heat energy is going into state changes, so it's not all being used to actually change the temperature of the food.

      – GentlePurpleRain
      Apr 18 at 14:48






    • 10





      To add to the last point, consider that reducing 100ml from a 1L pot of liquid requires evaporating that much water. Evaporating water requires an enormous amount of energy - for 100ml it works out to 226kJ of energy. If you were reheating the 900ml of liquid left, from 4C in the fridge to 70C (65C delta-T) for eating, you require 4.2J/gC, or about 250kJ. So reheating 900ml of cold soup takes the same amount of energy as reducing 100ml from 1L of soup which has already been heated to 100C. State changes consume large amounts of energy and cooking is all about state changes.

      – J...
      Apr 18 at 15:37






    • 4





      In addition to the fourth paragraph, (usually) when you cook some water will evaporate, meaning that when you reheat there's less water to warm up than when you cooked it in the first place, making it even faster to reach the temperature required.

      – Alexandre Aubrey
      Apr 18 at 16:13






    • 3





      @J...: are non-water state changes in cooking usually also endothermic? Maillard reaction? Breaking down collagen? Reactions can be exothermic but still not occur at room temperature (e.g. oxidation/combustion of wood), so requiring holding at higher temp doesn't prove that heat energy is going anywhere except being lost to the surrounding air / room, and carried off by evaporation except in a covered pot. Your example of reducing a liquid is a great example of a clearly endothermic process that's common in cooking, though.

      – Peter Cordes
      Apr 19 at 15:59








    • 3





      @PeterCordes Agreed. Putting a lid on the pot goes a long way, for example. Just containing the heat lost due to evaporation (and some negligible radiant cooling) you can leave a stew simmer on very low heat where it would have needed medium heat without a lid - clearly it's not the cooking reactions that are consuming the energy, as you say. I think it's probably safe to say that most energy lost in cooking is due to water evaporation, simply because water is ubiquitous in food and its enthalpy of vapourization is so ridiculously high.

      – J...
      Apr 19 at 17:53
















    51














    "Cooking" is often a chemical process. Denaturing proteins, gelatinization, causing chemical reactions like browning, or even causing state changes like evaporation.



    In many cases for these reactions to happen, we need to overheat the food. (Cook it and let it rest to cool off back down to undo some of the changes that were made and/or bring it back down to a reasonable temperature to eat). This is true when grilling meats, frying, baking bread, and lots of other types of cooking.



    Other times, we need to bring something to temperature and hold it there for some period of time. This holds for extracting collagen, starch gelatinization (eg, cooking pasta, potatoes, etc.) but also just waiting for flavors to transfer in soups and similar dishes.



    With warming, you're just adding enough heat to it to move it a few degrees, but you're not typically trying to change the state of the food, so less total energy is needed.



    Now, it is always faster to reheat vs. cook things? For the most part it's true, but I suspect that there would be an edge case out there. Something that's cooked from room temperature, but then stored chilled and the chilling causes issues (like retrogradation in starches, maybe?) that make them more resist than reheating.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 13





      I think your fourth paragraph should be highlighted more. That's the real answer to the question. Some of the heat energy is going into state changes, so it's not all being used to actually change the temperature of the food.

      – GentlePurpleRain
      Apr 18 at 14:48






    • 10





      To add to the last point, consider that reducing 100ml from a 1L pot of liquid requires evaporating that much water. Evaporating water requires an enormous amount of energy - for 100ml it works out to 226kJ of energy. If you were reheating the 900ml of liquid left, from 4C in the fridge to 70C (65C delta-T) for eating, you require 4.2J/gC, or about 250kJ. So reheating 900ml of cold soup takes the same amount of energy as reducing 100ml from 1L of soup which has already been heated to 100C. State changes consume large amounts of energy and cooking is all about state changes.

      – J...
      Apr 18 at 15:37






    • 4





      In addition to the fourth paragraph, (usually) when you cook some water will evaporate, meaning that when you reheat there's less water to warm up than when you cooked it in the first place, making it even faster to reach the temperature required.

      – Alexandre Aubrey
      Apr 18 at 16:13






    • 3





      @J...: are non-water state changes in cooking usually also endothermic? Maillard reaction? Breaking down collagen? Reactions can be exothermic but still not occur at room temperature (e.g. oxidation/combustion of wood), so requiring holding at higher temp doesn't prove that heat energy is going anywhere except being lost to the surrounding air / room, and carried off by evaporation except in a covered pot. Your example of reducing a liquid is a great example of a clearly endothermic process that's common in cooking, though.

      – Peter Cordes
      Apr 19 at 15:59








    • 3





      @PeterCordes Agreed. Putting a lid on the pot goes a long way, for example. Just containing the heat lost due to evaporation (and some negligible radiant cooling) you can leave a stew simmer on very low heat where it would have needed medium heat without a lid - clearly it's not the cooking reactions that are consuming the energy, as you say. I think it's probably safe to say that most energy lost in cooking is due to water evaporation, simply because water is ubiquitous in food and its enthalpy of vapourization is so ridiculously high.

      – J...
      Apr 19 at 17:53














    51












    51








    51







    "Cooking" is often a chemical process. Denaturing proteins, gelatinization, causing chemical reactions like browning, or even causing state changes like evaporation.



    In many cases for these reactions to happen, we need to overheat the food. (Cook it and let it rest to cool off back down to undo some of the changes that were made and/or bring it back down to a reasonable temperature to eat). This is true when grilling meats, frying, baking bread, and lots of other types of cooking.



    Other times, we need to bring something to temperature and hold it there for some period of time. This holds for extracting collagen, starch gelatinization (eg, cooking pasta, potatoes, etc.) but also just waiting for flavors to transfer in soups and similar dishes.



    With warming, you're just adding enough heat to it to move it a few degrees, but you're not typically trying to change the state of the food, so less total energy is needed.



    Now, it is always faster to reheat vs. cook things? For the most part it's true, but I suspect that there would be an edge case out there. Something that's cooked from room temperature, but then stored chilled and the chilling causes issues (like retrogradation in starches, maybe?) that make them more resist than reheating.






    share|improve this answer













    "Cooking" is often a chemical process. Denaturing proteins, gelatinization, causing chemical reactions like browning, or even causing state changes like evaporation.



    In many cases for these reactions to happen, we need to overheat the food. (Cook it and let it rest to cool off back down to undo some of the changes that were made and/or bring it back down to a reasonable temperature to eat). This is true when grilling meats, frying, baking bread, and lots of other types of cooking.



    Other times, we need to bring something to temperature and hold it there for some period of time. This holds for extracting collagen, starch gelatinization (eg, cooking pasta, potatoes, etc.) but also just waiting for flavors to transfer in soups and similar dishes.



    With warming, you're just adding enough heat to it to move it a few degrees, but you're not typically trying to change the state of the food, so less total energy is needed.



    Now, it is always faster to reheat vs. cook things? For the most part it's true, but I suspect that there would be an edge case out there. Something that's cooked from room temperature, but then stored chilled and the chilling causes issues (like retrogradation in starches, maybe?) that make them more resist than reheating.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Apr 18 at 13:56









    JoeJoe

    62k11108316




    62k11108316








    • 13





      I think your fourth paragraph should be highlighted more. That's the real answer to the question. Some of the heat energy is going into state changes, so it's not all being used to actually change the temperature of the food.

      – GentlePurpleRain
      Apr 18 at 14:48






    • 10





      To add to the last point, consider that reducing 100ml from a 1L pot of liquid requires evaporating that much water. Evaporating water requires an enormous amount of energy - for 100ml it works out to 226kJ of energy. If you were reheating the 900ml of liquid left, from 4C in the fridge to 70C (65C delta-T) for eating, you require 4.2J/gC, or about 250kJ. So reheating 900ml of cold soup takes the same amount of energy as reducing 100ml from 1L of soup which has already been heated to 100C. State changes consume large amounts of energy and cooking is all about state changes.

      – J...
      Apr 18 at 15:37






    • 4





      In addition to the fourth paragraph, (usually) when you cook some water will evaporate, meaning that when you reheat there's less water to warm up than when you cooked it in the first place, making it even faster to reach the temperature required.

      – Alexandre Aubrey
      Apr 18 at 16:13






    • 3





      @J...: are non-water state changes in cooking usually also endothermic? Maillard reaction? Breaking down collagen? Reactions can be exothermic but still not occur at room temperature (e.g. oxidation/combustion of wood), so requiring holding at higher temp doesn't prove that heat energy is going anywhere except being lost to the surrounding air / room, and carried off by evaporation except in a covered pot. Your example of reducing a liquid is a great example of a clearly endothermic process that's common in cooking, though.

      – Peter Cordes
      Apr 19 at 15:59








    • 3





      @PeterCordes Agreed. Putting a lid on the pot goes a long way, for example. Just containing the heat lost due to evaporation (and some negligible radiant cooling) you can leave a stew simmer on very low heat where it would have needed medium heat without a lid - clearly it's not the cooking reactions that are consuming the energy, as you say. I think it's probably safe to say that most energy lost in cooking is due to water evaporation, simply because water is ubiquitous in food and its enthalpy of vapourization is so ridiculously high.

      – J...
      Apr 19 at 17:53














    • 13





      I think your fourth paragraph should be highlighted more. That's the real answer to the question. Some of the heat energy is going into state changes, so it's not all being used to actually change the temperature of the food.

      – GentlePurpleRain
      Apr 18 at 14:48






    • 10





      To add to the last point, consider that reducing 100ml from a 1L pot of liquid requires evaporating that much water. Evaporating water requires an enormous amount of energy - for 100ml it works out to 226kJ of energy. If you were reheating the 900ml of liquid left, from 4C in the fridge to 70C (65C delta-T) for eating, you require 4.2J/gC, or about 250kJ. So reheating 900ml of cold soup takes the same amount of energy as reducing 100ml from 1L of soup which has already been heated to 100C. State changes consume large amounts of energy and cooking is all about state changes.

      – J...
      Apr 18 at 15:37






    • 4





      In addition to the fourth paragraph, (usually) when you cook some water will evaporate, meaning that when you reheat there's less water to warm up than when you cooked it in the first place, making it even faster to reach the temperature required.

      – Alexandre Aubrey
      Apr 18 at 16:13






    • 3





      @J...: are non-water state changes in cooking usually also endothermic? Maillard reaction? Breaking down collagen? Reactions can be exothermic but still not occur at room temperature (e.g. oxidation/combustion of wood), so requiring holding at higher temp doesn't prove that heat energy is going anywhere except being lost to the surrounding air / room, and carried off by evaporation except in a covered pot. Your example of reducing a liquid is a great example of a clearly endothermic process that's common in cooking, though.

      – Peter Cordes
      Apr 19 at 15:59








    • 3





      @PeterCordes Agreed. Putting a lid on the pot goes a long way, for example. Just containing the heat lost due to evaporation (and some negligible radiant cooling) you can leave a stew simmer on very low heat where it would have needed medium heat without a lid - clearly it's not the cooking reactions that are consuming the energy, as you say. I think it's probably safe to say that most energy lost in cooking is due to water evaporation, simply because water is ubiquitous in food and its enthalpy of vapourization is so ridiculously high.

      – J...
      Apr 19 at 17:53








    13




    13





    I think your fourth paragraph should be highlighted more. That's the real answer to the question. Some of the heat energy is going into state changes, so it's not all being used to actually change the temperature of the food.

    – GentlePurpleRain
    Apr 18 at 14:48





    I think your fourth paragraph should be highlighted more. That's the real answer to the question. Some of the heat energy is going into state changes, so it's not all being used to actually change the temperature of the food.

    – GentlePurpleRain
    Apr 18 at 14:48




    10




    10





    To add to the last point, consider that reducing 100ml from a 1L pot of liquid requires evaporating that much water. Evaporating water requires an enormous amount of energy - for 100ml it works out to 226kJ of energy. If you were reheating the 900ml of liquid left, from 4C in the fridge to 70C (65C delta-T) for eating, you require 4.2J/gC, or about 250kJ. So reheating 900ml of cold soup takes the same amount of energy as reducing 100ml from 1L of soup which has already been heated to 100C. State changes consume large amounts of energy and cooking is all about state changes.

    – J...
    Apr 18 at 15:37





    To add to the last point, consider that reducing 100ml from a 1L pot of liquid requires evaporating that much water. Evaporating water requires an enormous amount of energy - for 100ml it works out to 226kJ of energy. If you were reheating the 900ml of liquid left, from 4C in the fridge to 70C (65C delta-T) for eating, you require 4.2J/gC, or about 250kJ. So reheating 900ml of cold soup takes the same amount of energy as reducing 100ml from 1L of soup which has already been heated to 100C. State changes consume large amounts of energy and cooking is all about state changes.

    – J...
    Apr 18 at 15:37




    4




    4





    In addition to the fourth paragraph, (usually) when you cook some water will evaporate, meaning that when you reheat there's less water to warm up than when you cooked it in the first place, making it even faster to reach the temperature required.

    – Alexandre Aubrey
    Apr 18 at 16:13





    In addition to the fourth paragraph, (usually) when you cook some water will evaporate, meaning that when you reheat there's less water to warm up than when you cooked it in the first place, making it even faster to reach the temperature required.

    – Alexandre Aubrey
    Apr 18 at 16:13




    3




    3





    @J...: are non-water state changes in cooking usually also endothermic? Maillard reaction? Breaking down collagen? Reactions can be exothermic but still not occur at room temperature (e.g. oxidation/combustion of wood), so requiring holding at higher temp doesn't prove that heat energy is going anywhere except being lost to the surrounding air / room, and carried off by evaporation except in a covered pot. Your example of reducing a liquid is a great example of a clearly endothermic process that's common in cooking, though.

    – Peter Cordes
    Apr 19 at 15:59







    @J...: are non-water state changes in cooking usually also endothermic? Maillard reaction? Breaking down collagen? Reactions can be exothermic but still not occur at room temperature (e.g. oxidation/combustion of wood), so requiring holding at higher temp doesn't prove that heat energy is going anywhere except being lost to the surrounding air / room, and carried off by evaporation except in a covered pot. Your example of reducing a liquid is a great example of a clearly endothermic process that's common in cooking, though.

    – Peter Cordes
    Apr 19 at 15:59






    3




    3





    @PeterCordes Agreed. Putting a lid on the pot goes a long way, for example. Just containing the heat lost due to evaporation (and some negligible radiant cooling) you can leave a stew simmer on very low heat where it would have needed medium heat without a lid - clearly it's not the cooking reactions that are consuming the energy, as you say. I think it's probably safe to say that most energy lost in cooking is due to water evaporation, simply because water is ubiquitous in food and its enthalpy of vapourization is so ridiculously high.

    – J...
    Apr 19 at 17:53





    @PeterCordes Agreed. Putting a lid on the pot goes a long way, for example. Just containing the heat lost due to evaporation (and some negligible radiant cooling) you can leave a stew simmer on very low heat where it would have needed medium heat without a lid - clearly it's not the cooking reactions that are consuming the energy, as you say. I think it's probably safe to say that most energy lost in cooking is due to water evaporation, simply because water is ubiquitous in food and its enthalpy of vapourization is so ridiculously high.

    – J...
    Apr 19 at 17:53













    6














    This is because when you're cooking some foods you're not just heating it up. A lot of foods are boiled, not because they need to be heated up, but because they need to absorb water. We just boil the water because that makes the hydration go a lot faster (the high temperature is also needed to break down some of the starches, for more info, see here).



    With soup it should take about the same time, if you don't care about dissolving/softening the vegetables into the soup. That also takes time, with vegetables the chemical reaction involved is mainly breaking down the pectin that holds the cells of the vegetable together.



    With meat, dissolving/denaturing the collagen (stuff that holds everything together) into gelatin also takes time. Also you want a different temperature for reheating than frying because with meat you want a nice crispy brown outside (Maillard reactions), and for that you need far higher temperatures than the inside of your meat.






    share|improve this answer






























      6














      This is because when you're cooking some foods you're not just heating it up. A lot of foods are boiled, not because they need to be heated up, but because they need to absorb water. We just boil the water because that makes the hydration go a lot faster (the high temperature is also needed to break down some of the starches, for more info, see here).



      With soup it should take about the same time, if you don't care about dissolving/softening the vegetables into the soup. That also takes time, with vegetables the chemical reaction involved is mainly breaking down the pectin that holds the cells of the vegetable together.



      With meat, dissolving/denaturing the collagen (stuff that holds everything together) into gelatin also takes time. Also you want a different temperature for reheating than frying because with meat you want a nice crispy brown outside (Maillard reactions), and for that you need far higher temperatures than the inside of your meat.






      share|improve this answer




























        6












        6








        6







        This is because when you're cooking some foods you're not just heating it up. A lot of foods are boiled, not because they need to be heated up, but because they need to absorb water. We just boil the water because that makes the hydration go a lot faster (the high temperature is also needed to break down some of the starches, for more info, see here).



        With soup it should take about the same time, if you don't care about dissolving/softening the vegetables into the soup. That also takes time, with vegetables the chemical reaction involved is mainly breaking down the pectin that holds the cells of the vegetable together.



        With meat, dissolving/denaturing the collagen (stuff that holds everything together) into gelatin also takes time. Also you want a different temperature for reheating than frying because with meat you want a nice crispy brown outside (Maillard reactions), and for that you need far higher temperatures than the inside of your meat.






        share|improve this answer















        This is because when you're cooking some foods you're not just heating it up. A lot of foods are boiled, not because they need to be heated up, but because they need to absorb water. We just boil the water because that makes the hydration go a lot faster (the high temperature is also needed to break down some of the starches, for more info, see here).



        With soup it should take about the same time, if you don't care about dissolving/softening the vegetables into the soup. That also takes time, with vegetables the chemical reaction involved is mainly breaking down the pectin that holds the cells of the vegetable together.



        With meat, dissolving/denaturing the collagen (stuff that holds everything together) into gelatin also takes time. Also you want a different temperature for reheating than frying because with meat you want a nice crispy brown outside (Maillard reactions), and for that you need far higher temperatures than the inside of your meat.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Apr 18 at 14:17

























        answered Apr 18 at 13:58









        Frederik BaetensFrederik Baetens

        1614




        1614























            2















            It doesn't even seem to matter on the method of reheating, as I can reheat something faster if I use the same method of as I did to cook it (e.g. by frying).



            Note that I always check the temperature of something I've reheated via a food-probe, so I'm also not making a mistaking of cooking something to 70C and then reheating to 45C etc.




            That is not strictly possible. If you are imparting the same amount of heat energy to the same thing at the same rate in the same controlled environment, then the resulting temperature must necessarily be identical.



            If you are ensuring a consistent overall temperature resulting from the same source, then the time difference arises because you are heating different things.



            One likely culprit would be water that escaped as steam during during cooking or evaporated during/after, which reduces the mass you are heating the second time around. Water is also one of the slowest things to heat, because it has one of the highest specific heat capacities amongst common substances. This alone would result in a very noticeable difference in many types of food.






            share|improve this answer
























            • Is raw chicken the "same thing" as cooked chicken?

              – Pod
              Apr 24 at 11:16











            • Nope. I would hope they're pretty easy to distinguish, otherwise you may get salmonella.

              – Matthew Read
              Apr 24 at 17:17
















            2















            It doesn't even seem to matter on the method of reheating, as I can reheat something faster if I use the same method of as I did to cook it (e.g. by frying).



            Note that I always check the temperature of something I've reheated via a food-probe, so I'm also not making a mistaking of cooking something to 70C and then reheating to 45C etc.




            That is not strictly possible. If you are imparting the same amount of heat energy to the same thing at the same rate in the same controlled environment, then the resulting temperature must necessarily be identical.



            If you are ensuring a consistent overall temperature resulting from the same source, then the time difference arises because you are heating different things.



            One likely culprit would be water that escaped as steam during during cooking or evaporated during/after, which reduces the mass you are heating the second time around. Water is also one of the slowest things to heat, because it has one of the highest specific heat capacities amongst common substances. This alone would result in a very noticeable difference in many types of food.






            share|improve this answer
























            • Is raw chicken the "same thing" as cooked chicken?

              – Pod
              Apr 24 at 11:16











            • Nope. I would hope they're pretty easy to distinguish, otherwise you may get salmonella.

              – Matthew Read
              Apr 24 at 17:17














            2












            2








            2








            It doesn't even seem to matter on the method of reheating, as I can reheat something faster if I use the same method of as I did to cook it (e.g. by frying).



            Note that I always check the temperature of something I've reheated via a food-probe, so I'm also not making a mistaking of cooking something to 70C and then reheating to 45C etc.




            That is not strictly possible. If you are imparting the same amount of heat energy to the same thing at the same rate in the same controlled environment, then the resulting temperature must necessarily be identical.



            If you are ensuring a consistent overall temperature resulting from the same source, then the time difference arises because you are heating different things.



            One likely culprit would be water that escaped as steam during during cooking or evaporated during/after, which reduces the mass you are heating the second time around. Water is also one of the slowest things to heat, because it has one of the highest specific heat capacities amongst common substances. This alone would result in a very noticeable difference in many types of food.






            share|improve this answer














            It doesn't even seem to matter on the method of reheating, as I can reheat something faster if I use the same method of as I did to cook it (e.g. by frying).



            Note that I always check the temperature of something I've reheated via a food-probe, so I'm also not making a mistaking of cooking something to 70C and then reheating to 45C etc.




            That is not strictly possible. If you are imparting the same amount of heat energy to the same thing at the same rate in the same controlled environment, then the resulting temperature must necessarily be identical.



            If you are ensuring a consistent overall temperature resulting from the same source, then the time difference arises because you are heating different things.



            One likely culprit would be water that escaped as steam during during cooking or evaporated during/after, which reduces the mass you are heating the second time around. Water is also one of the slowest things to heat, because it has one of the highest specific heat capacities amongst common substances. This alone would result in a very noticeable difference in many types of food.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Apr 19 at 17:01









            Matthew ReadMatthew Read

            386419




            386419













            • Is raw chicken the "same thing" as cooked chicken?

              – Pod
              Apr 24 at 11:16











            • Nope. I would hope they're pretty easy to distinguish, otherwise you may get salmonella.

              – Matthew Read
              Apr 24 at 17:17



















            • Is raw chicken the "same thing" as cooked chicken?

              – Pod
              Apr 24 at 11:16











            • Nope. I would hope they're pretty easy to distinguish, otherwise you may get salmonella.

              – Matthew Read
              Apr 24 at 17:17

















            Is raw chicken the "same thing" as cooked chicken?

            – Pod
            Apr 24 at 11:16





            Is raw chicken the "same thing" as cooked chicken?

            – Pod
            Apr 24 at 11:16













            Nope. I would hope they're pretty easy to distinguish, otherwise you may get salmonella.

            – Matthew Read
            Apr 24 at 17:17





            Nope. I would hope they're pretty easy to distinguish, otherwise you may get salmonella.

            – Matthew Read
            Apr 24 at 17:17











            2














            Because heating up is merely rising the temperature of a body and how much its temperature change depends on its specific heat. The sane is for the complex mix of the various items in the pot as we are speaking about kitchen.



            Cooking involves a number of physical and chemica processes, each of which takes time. Is this taking time the major difference, that is why I've decided to add this answer alongside the others. They aren't wrong at all, just in a way incomplete. Cooking must be accomplished, and that will be the case anyway, see just here below.



            Most of these process require heat as well, that is energy must be given to the system. So the pot must stay on stove (or the meat on the grill, etc.) longer.



            Independent of this energy requirement, which for some chemical transformations can be even positive (ie the process releases energy and not vise versa), chemical reactions go faster higher the temperature is.
            For instance, pasta could be cooked at lower than boiling point, just it will take longer. This is why pressure cooking is somehow faster as well less energy consuming.



            edited.



            Specifically to question number 1, yes is at least in principle possible that a cooked item takes longer to be heat as compared to heat the original item. If cooking involved water intake, the specific heat of the cooked item might be bigger, for instance. An example is likely pasta. I would expect that it takes longer to bring a cooked spaghetto to 100 °C than doing it with a raw one. But this analysis is certainly out of the kitchen (fine measuring, ad hoc experiments, way of heating....), as probably we never put raw vs cooked spaghetti on a hot plate and measure how long it takes for them to reach the wanted T.






            share|improve this answer


























            • [the other answers] aren't wrong at all, just in a way incomplete I agree, but I also think your answer is incomplete! :) Is it possible to give some examples of a physical of chemical process that happens when cooking, but not when heating? e.g. converting raw chicken protein into cooked chicken protein?

              – Pod
              Apr 24 at 11:20






            • 1





              Pod. Happy that you get my point. The only thing that I don't understand of your comment is that I do not see how to get into heating without starting cooking as well. I could well denature egg proteins, or even an egg, but this happens from a certain T up. As far eadible items are taken as a whole, cooking requires heating, which can be semantic. Cheese affinage it is something else. I am satisfied that you understood the nuance, but @Echox say the same although in a more spartan way. I go up voting his/her A too. Tell me if I misunderstood your comment.

              – Alchimista
              Apr 25 at 6:40
















            2














            Because heating up is merely rising the temperature of a body and how much its temperature change depends on its specific heat. The sane is for the complex mix of the various items in the pot as we are speaking about kitchen.



            Cooking involves a number of physical and chemica processes, each of which takes time. Is this taking time the major difference, that is why I've decided to add this answer alongside the others. They aren't wrong at all, just in a way incomplete. Cooking must be accomplished, and that will be the case anyway, see just here below.



            Most of these process require heat as well, that is energy must be given to the system. So the pot must stay on stove (or the meat on the grill, etc.) longer.



            Independent of this energy requirement, which for some chemical transformations can be even positive (ie the process releases energy and not vise versa), chemical reactions go faster higher the temperature is.
            For instance, pasta could be cooked at lower than boiling point, just it will take longer. This is why pressure cooking is somehow faster as well less energy consuming.



            edited.



            Specifically to question number 1, yes is at least in principle possible that a cooked item takes longer to be heat as compared to heat the original item. If cooking involved water intake, the specific heat of the cooked item might be bigger, for instance. An example is likely pasta. I would expect that it takes longer to bring a cooked spaghetto to 100 °C than doing it with a raw one. But this analysis is certainly out of the kitchen (fine measuring, ad hoc experiments, way of heating....), as probably we never put raw vs cooked spaghetti on a hot plate and measure how long it takes for them to reach the wanted T.






            share|improve this answer


























            • [the other answers] aren't wrong at all, just in a way incomplete I agree, but I also think your answer is incomplete! :) Is it possible to give some examples of a physical of chemical process that happens when cooking, but not when heating? e.g. converting raw chicken protein into cooked chicken protein?

              – Pod
              Apr 24 at 11:20






            • 1





              Pod. Happy that you get my point. The only thing that I don't understand of your comment is that I do not see how to get into heating without starting cooking as well. I could well denature egg proteins, or even an egg, but this happens from a certain T up. As far eadible items are taken as a whole, cooking requires heating, which can be semantic. Cheese affinage it is something else. I am satisfied that you understood the nuance, but @Echox say the same although in a more spartan way. I go up voting his/her A too. Tell me if I misunderstood your comment.

              – Alchimista
              Apr 25 at 6:40














            2












            2








            2







            Because heating up is merely rising the temperature of a body and how much its temperature change depends on its specific heat. The sane is for the complex mix of the various items in the pot as we are speaking about kitchen.



            Cooking involves a number of physical and chemica processes, each of which takes time. Is this taking time the major difference, that is why I've decided to add this answer alongside the others. They aren't wrong at all, just in a way incomplete. Cooking must be accomplished, and that will be the case anyway, see just here below.



            Most of these process require heat as well, that is energy must be given to the system. So the pot must stay on stove (or the meat on the grill, etc.) longer.



            Independent of this energy requirement, which for some chemical transformations can be even positive (ie the process releases energy and not vise versa), chemical reactions go faster higher the temperature is.
            For instance, pasta could be cooked at lower than boiling point, just it will take longer. This is why pressure cooking is somehow faster as well less energy consuming.



            edited.



            Specifically to question number 1, yes is at least in principle possible that a cooked item takes longer to be heat as compared to heat the original item. If cooking involved water intake, the specific heat of the cooked item might be bigger, for instance. An example is likely pasta. I would expect that it takes longer to bring a cooked spaghetto to 100 °C than doing it with a raw one. But this analysis is certainly out of the kitchen (fine measuring, ad hoc experiments, way of heating....), as probably we never put raw vs cooked spaghetti on a hot plate and measure how long it takes for them to reach the wanted T.






            share|improve this answer















            Because heating up is merely rising the temperature of a body and how much its temperature change depends on its specific heat. The sane is for the complex mix of the various items in the pot as we are speaking about kitchen.



            Cooking involves a number of physical and chemica processes, each of which takes time. Is this taking time the major difference, that is why I've decided to add this answer alongside the others. They aren't wrong at all, just in a way incomplete. Cooking must be accomplished, and that will be the case anyway, see just here below.



            Most of these process require heat as well, that is energy must be given to the system. So the pot must stay on stove (or the meat on the grill, etc.) longer.



            Independent of this energy requirement, which for some chemical transformations can be even positive (ie the process releases energy and not vise versa), chemical reactions go faster higher the temperature is.
            For instance, pasta could be cooked at lower than boiling point, just it will take longer. This is why pressure cooking is somehow faster as well less energy consuming.



            edited.



            Specifically to question number 1, yes is at least in principle possible that a cooked item takes longer to be heat as compared to heat the original item. If cooking involved water intake, the specific heat of the cooked item might be bigger, for instance. An example is likely pasta. I would expect that it takes longer to bring a cooked spaghetto to 100 °C than doing it with a raw one. But this analysis is certainly out of the kitchen (fine measuring, ad hoc experiments, way of heating....), as probably we never put raw vs cooked spaghetti on a hot plate and measure how long it takes for them to reach the wanted T.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Apr 25 at 7:09

























            answered Apr 19 at 8:57









            AlchimistaAlchimista

            70016




            70016













            • [the other answers] aren't wrong at all, just in a way incomplete I agree, but I also think your answer is incomplete! :) Is it possible to give some examples of a physical of chemical process that happens when cooking, but not when heating? e.g. converting raw chicken protein into cooked chicken protein?

              – Pod
              Apr 24 at 11:20






            • 1





              Pod. Happy that you get my point. The only thing that I don't understand of your comment is that I do not see how to get into heating without starting cooking as well. I could well denature egg proteins, or even an egg, but this happens from a certain T up. As far eadible items are taken as a whole, cooking requires heating, which can be semantic. Cheese affinage it is something else. I am satisfied that you understood the nuance, but @Echox say the same although in a more spartan way. I go up voting his/her A too. Tell me if I misunderstood your comment.

              – Alchimista
              Apr 25 at 6:40



















            • [the other answers] aren't wrong at all, just in a way incomplete I agree, but I also think your answer is incomplete! :) Is it possible to give some examples of a physical of chemical process that happens when cooking, but not when heating? e.g. converting raw chicken protein into cooked chicken protein?

              – Pod
              Apr 24 at 11:20






            • 1





              Pod. Happy that you get my point. The only thing that I don't understand of your comment is that I do not see how to get into heating without starting cooking as well. I could well denature egg proteins, or even an egg, but this happens from a certain T up. As far eadible items are taken as a whole, cooking requires heating, which can be semantic. Cheese affinage it is something else. I am satisfied that you understood the nuance, but @Echox say the same although in a more spartan way. I go up voting his/her A too. Tell me if I misunderstood your comment.

              – Alchimista
              Apr 25 at 6:40

















            [the other answers] aren't wrong at all, just in a way incomplete I agree, but I also think your answer is incomplete! :) Is it possible to give some examples of a physical of chemical process that happens when cooking, but not when heating? e.g. converting raw chicken protein into cooked chicken protein?

            – Pod
            Apr 24 at 11:20





            [the other answers] aren't wrong at all, just in a way incomplete I agree, but I also think your answer is incomplete! :) Is it possible to give some examples of a physical of chemical process that happens when cooking, but not when heating? e.g. converting raw chicken protein into cooked chicken protein?

            – Pod
            Apr 24 at 11:20




            1




            1





            Pod. Happy that you get my point. The only thing that I don't understand of your comment is that I do not see how to get into heating without starting cooking as well. I could well denature egg proteins, or even an egg, but this happens from a certain T up. As far eadible items are taken as a whole, cooking requires heating, which can be semantic. Cheese affinage it is something else. I am satisfied that you understood the nuance, but @Echox say the same although in a more spartan way. I go up voting his/her A too. Tell me if I misunderstood your comment.

            – Alchimista
            Apr 25 at 6:40





            Pod. Happy that you get my point. The only thing that I don't understand of your comment is that I do not see how to get into heating without starting cooking as well. I could well denature egg proteins, or even an egg, but this happens from a certain T up. As far eadible items are taken as a whole, cooking requires heating, which can be semantic. Cheese affinage it is something else. I am satisfied that you understood the nuance, but @Echox say the same although in a more spartan way. I go up voting his/her A too. Tell me if I misunderstood your comment.

            – Alchimista
            Apr 25 at 6:40











            0














            Does this question really call for a scientific explaination ?



            To cook, you heat something and let it stay hot until it get cooked.
            To heat, you just heat it a bit until you can eat it.



            So even it you want to eat it as hot as its cooking temperature (which you won't in most cases, with a good 100°C margin), you just ignore all the "cooking time" after you reached the right temperature.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1





              When you mention a 100C margin, I think you're talking about oven air temperature, not food temperature. If you stick a probe thermometer in your food and heat it to ~140 Celsius, you'll drive out all the water by boiling it off on the way to that temp, and proteins will break down leaving any meat basically inedible way beyond the point of overcooking to a crumbly dry disaster.

              – Peter Cordes
              Apr 19 at 15:52













            • Does this question really call for a scientific explaination ?. Yes, as that's what I'm interested in. Otherwise I would have asked "How do I heat up food?????".

              – Pod
              Apr 24 at 11:17








            • 1





              What I mean is that your original question can be translated as "Why is something that I heat for a long time takes longer than something I heat for a short time" and doesn't need any kind of physical or chemical explaination. But maybe what you really wanted to know is what happens when you cook something and why does it needs to stay at a certain temperature for a long time but then your questions would need editing.

              – Echox
              Apr 24 at 12:27
















            0














            Does this question really call for a scientific explaination ?



            To cook, you heat something and let it stay hot until it get cooked.
            To heat, you just heat it a bit until you can eat it.



            So even it you want to eat it as hot as its cooking temperature (which you won't in most cases, with a good 100°C margin), you just ignore all the "cooking time" after you reached the right temperature.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1





              When you mention a 100C margin, I think you're talking about oven air temperature, not food temperature. If you stick a probe thermometer in your food and heat it to ~140 Celsius, you'll drive out all the water by boiling it off on the way to that temp, and proteins will break down leaving any meat basically inedible way beyond the point of overcooking to a crumbly dry disaster.

              – Peter Cordes
              Apr 19 at 15:52













            • Does this question really call for a scientific explaination ?. Yes, as that's what I'm interested in. Otherwise I would have asked "How do I heat up food?????".

              – Pod
              Apr 24 at 11:17








            • 1





              What I mean is that your original question can be translated as "Why is something that I heat for a long time takes longer than something I heat for a short time" and doesn't need any kind of physical or chemical explaination. But maybe what you really wanted to know is what happens when you cook something and why does it needs to stay at a certain temperature for a long time but then your questions would need editing.

              – Echox
              Apr 24 at 12:27














            0












            0








            0







            Does this question really call for a scientific explaination ?



            To cook, you heat something and let it stay hot until it get cooked.
            To heat, you just heat it a bit until you can eat it.



            So even it you want to eat it as hot as its cooking temperature (which you won't in most cases, with a good 100°C margin), you just ignore all the "cooking time" after you reached the right temperature.






            share|improve this answer













            Does this question really call for a scientific explaination ?



            To cook, you heat something and let it stay hot until it get cooked.
            To heat, you just heat it a bit until you can eat it.



            So even it you want to eat it as hot as its cooking temperature (which you won't in most cases, with a good 100°C margin), you just ignore all the "cooking time" after you reached the right temperature.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Apr 19 at 12:24









            EchoxEchox

            125




            125








            • 1





              When you mention a 100C margin, I think you're talking about oven air temperature, not food temperature. If you stick a probe thermometer in your food and heat it to ~140 Celsius, you'll drive out all the water by boiling it off on the way to that temp, and proteins will break down leaving any meat basically inedible way beyond the point of overcooking to a crumbly dry disaster.

              – Peter Cordes
              Apr 19 at 15:52













            • Does this question really call for a scientific explaination ?. Yes, as that's what I'm interested in. Otherwise I would have asked "How do I heat up food?????".

              – Pod
              Apr 24 at 11:17








            • 1





              What I mean is that your original question can be translated as "Why is something that I heat for a long time takes longer than something I heat for a short time" and doesn't need any kind of physical or chemical explaination. But maybe what you really wanted to know is what happens when you cook something and why does it needs to stay at a certain temperature for a long time but then your questions would need editing.

              – Echox
              Apr 24 at 12:27














            • 1





              When you mention a 100C margin, I think you're talking about oven air temperature, not food temperature. If you stick a probe thermometer in your food and heat it to ~140 Celsius, you'll drive out all the water by boiling it off on the way to that temp, and proteins will break down leaving any meat basically inedible way beyond the point of overcooking to a crumbly dry disaster.

              – Peter Cordes
              Apr 19 at 15:52













            • Does this question really call for a scientific explaination ?. Yes, as that's what I'm interested in. Otherwise I would have asked "How do I heat up food?????".

              – Pod
              Apr 24 at 11:17








            • 1





              What I mean is that your original question can be translated as "Why is something that I heat for a long time takes longer than something I heat for a short time" and doesn't need any kind of physical or chemical explaination. But maybe what you really wanted to know is what happens when you cook something and why does it needs to stay at a certain temperature for a long time but then your questions would need editing.

              – Echox
              Apr 24 at 12:27








            1




            1





            When you mention a 100C margin, I think you're talking about oven air temperature, not food temperature. If you stick a probe thermometer in your food and heat it to ~140 Celsius, you'll drive out all the water by boiling it off on the way to that temp, and proteins will break down leaving any meat basically inedible way beyond the point of overcooking to a crumbly dry disaster.

            – Peter Cordes
            Apr 19 at 15:52







            When you mention a 100C margin, I think you're talking about oven air temperature, not food temperature. If you stick a probe thermometer in your food and heat it to ~140 Celsius, you'll drive out all the water by boiling it off on the way to that temp, and proteins will break down leaving any meat basically inedible way beyond the point of overcooking to a crumbly dry disaster.

            – Peter Cordes
            Apr 19 at 15:52















            Does this question really call for a scientific explaination ?. Yes, as that's what I'm interested in. Otherwise I would have asked "How do I heat up food?????".

            – Pod
            Apr 24 at 11:17







            Does this question really call for a scientific explaination ?. Yes, as that's what I'm interested in. Otherwise I would have asked "How do I heat up food?????".

            – Pod
            Apr 24 at 11:17






            1




            1





            What I mean is that your original question can be translated as "Why is something that I heat for a long time takes longer than something I heat for a short time" and doesn't need any kind of physical or chemical explaination. But maybe what you really wanted to know is what happens when you cook something and why does it needs to stay at a certain temperature for a long time but then your questions would need editing.

            – Echox
            Apr 24 at 12:27





            What I mean is that your original question can be translated as "Why is something that I heat for a long time takes longer than something I heat for a short time" and doesn't need any kind of physical or chemical explaination. But maybe what you really wanted to know is what happens when you cook something and why does it needs to stay at a certain temperature for a long time but then your questions would need editing.

            – Echox
            Apr 24 at 12:27


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Seasoned Advice!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcooking.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f97547%2fwhy-is-it-faster-to-reheat-something-than-it-is-to-cook-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

            He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

            Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029