Jump to content

Bagels versus 'Rolls with Holes'


darkstar965

Recommended Posts

At Don's request, starting a topic about what differentiates a "real bagel" from the posers (I call them "rolls with holes") which dominate the American market.

Simplifying, there are at least three key things (and I'd love for Mary Beall Adler to weigh in here because I am not a bagel expert--have just read and learned enough to be dangerous over the years) that distinguish the ridiculously small number of "real bagel spots" from all the rest in this country:

1. Ingredients. As with any food, it all starts here. Real bagels should have a small number of ingredients. A high-gluten flour, salt, yeast starter, whatever topping (e.g., onion, garlic, poppyseed), etc.. High-gluten flour is the most likely short cut taken by many since it's more expensive than the cheaper "all purpose" flours in use at nearly all roll-with-hole places. If you ever get a chance to compare and contrast bagels made similarly except for different flours, the difference is obvious.

2. Proof. Real bagels are proofed in a warm oven for around 12 hours.

3. Boil. This requires special equipment if a commercial/retail operation. Commercial bagel boilers can be large and expensive. Very few places in America boil their 'rolls with holes' since the thinking is most people won't know the difference anyway.

4. Bake. Oven.

Wikipedia has a decent overview of the history and process here.

And, a Chow journalist did a good primary piece here with the first page better than the 2nd where the home process glosses ingredients among other issues.

If this is of interest and at all unfamiliar, you may want to try a taste test. Armed just with the information in this post as background, start at Brueggers in Glover Park and get a plain bagel. Don't eat it. Then drive up to Georgetown Bagelry on River Road in Bethesda and get another plain there. There's a Whole Foods in the same center as Georgetown--get a plain from them too. Finally, just to the north is a Dunkin Donuts. Get one of their plain rolls with a hole...I mean bagels. Then, find a quiet spot and lay out the four contenders side by side. Look at their color and the firmness of the exterior; also their size (a real bagel is smaller than what passes at most places). Then touch. Real bagels will be almost hard and crackly at the exterior but are dense and will push back a bit to light pressure applied with a finger. Finally, taste a bit of each. Real bagels shouldn't be sweet or sour--rather just a hint of both counterbalancing each other. Very slightly yeasty. Great satisfying chew and texture. That's what you're looking for. To my way of thinking, only one of the four will meet that kind of testing. But you be the judge and see what you like. If anyone does this and would be willing to share any photos and preferences, it would be truly great to hear.

Suggested 'taste test' route here.

Special Note: the information above the taste test suggestion is for what are traditionally termed "New York Style Bagels." Bagels were first invented in Eastern Europe (Poland specifically by most accounts). Then and now there are differences across countries.

"Montreal Bagels," to my way of thinking, are suspect since they are a pretty different animal with egg, without salt and with sweetened water. Suspect just because I was raised to most appreciate the NY or "water" style. Though I also think the Montreal variant diverges more from what was typical in Europe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Mimi Sheraton wrote a fascinating history of the bialy. I wonder if there is a similarly well-written book about the bagel...

For Zora and others interested, this is the best I've yet found. I haven't read this book but have ordered it so take the recc with a grain of salt (unless you're looking for a good Montreal Bagel book of course...hahaha, bagel pun). I suspect there may be something better out there but, so far, haven't found one despite spending some time researching it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I lived in NYC everyone told me that NYC had the best bagels because of the water, which apparently was piped down from upstate. Alas I understand that the city no longer gets all of its water from the previous source, so the bagels are no longer as good as they once were.

Interesting, with all the detail in the post I wrote to start this thread, didn't even mention water quality. Of course I should have. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some additional research/info on high-gluten flour as referenced in the first post upthread and a key element distinguishing bagels from, well, other breads. Quoted from another bagel thread but seemed like it should be here too.

It's a matter of protein content. Bread flours made from "hard wheat", "winter wheat" or even "spring wheat" seem to run around 9% to
11% protein. High-gluten flour, such as the "Sir Lancelot" sold by King Arthur is over 14% protein.

Here are here are two discussions from an online baking website that offers some clarity.

And here is the King Arthur HG product where you can see bagels specifically referenced.

Finally, a good clinical treatment of the difference between most "bread flours" "all purpose flours," and "high gluten flour"

Bottom line, the difference is about 3-4% protein which is significant since nearly all flour has less than 15% protein. All the sources make clear
that the high-gluten flour is best suited for things like bagels and pizza crusts because they require more structure and firmness. And,
because the high-gluten flour is typically more expensive than lower protein flours, this is why most bagel shops looking to cut corners will
go with the more affordable bread flours. I think this is a major difference to people who can taste the difference but don't have a lot
of flour and baking expertise. Bagel aficionados will talk about a better bagel having "better chew" or "less yield" and that's usually due to the protein content of the flour. The choice of flour really is a big difference maker between bagels, the huge range of wonderful other breads, and 'rolls with holes.' :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links. Very interesting read and answers my question about the difference between (King Arthur) bread vs. high gluten flour. However, the contributors to these aforementioned posts tend to use percentages of protein and the word "gluten" interchangeably. Are tey one and the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links. Very interesting read and answers my question about the difference between (King Arthur) bread vs. high gluten flour. However, the contributors to these aforementioned posts tend to use percentages of protein and the word "gluten" interchangeably. Are tey one and the same?

That's a great question. Scientifically, the answer is no. Lots of good perspective on the question here with the best post getting to the heart of the matter just below. Simply stated, two specific proteins form gluten when combined with water. So, in flour, "high protein" and "high gluten" generally correlate or track together but they don't have to because there are other proteins in flour aside from the two that form gluten.

More elegantly courtesy of a knowledgeable poster on thefreshloaf.com named Andy:

Protein is an umbrella term

What might be confusing is that Protein is a general term - there are lots of different kinds of proteins in each type of grain.

Two of these types of protein are glutenin and gliadin. When these two proteins come into contact with water, they form a network of

interlacing strands that is referred to as gluten. In wheats that are used for bread flour, these two forms of protein (glutenin and gliadin)

happen to be very prevalent and very nicely balanced. There are other proteins in wheat flour, just as there are other proteins in other

flours, such as rye, soy, barley, etc. This is why a flour might be high in protein, but not high in gluten. Rys, for example, has some

gluten forming proteins (so gluten-intolerant people should probably also avoid rye), but more of the non-gluten forming proteins. Soy is

usually considered to be a "gluten-free" food, though I don't know if this means that it has neither glutenin nor gliadin, or if it might have

some of one, but not the other (recall that you need both glutenin and gliadin, in contact with water, to make gluten).

The percentages of "protein" that are reported on bags of wheat flour are used as a guide to how much gluten one can expect in the flour.

Flour intended for bread production might have up to 10-12% "protein". Flour marketed as "all-purpose" might have a protein content of 8-11%

"protein" (note that there is some overlap here - terms like "bread flour" and "all-purpose" flour are marketing terms, not scientific

classifications). Pastry flours (which are also made of wheat) often have a much lower protein content. Ultimately, though, what is most

relevant for the bread baker is the amount, and balance, of the two gluten-forming proteins in particular.

I agree with the poster above who noted that more gluten is not always better for bread production. Too much gluten can result in a

texture that is rubbery, and to most tastes, unpleasant. Most rustic and artisan bread bakers prefer a moderate amount of gluten; wonderful,

light and airy bread can be made with "all-purpose" flours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...