Bring a large pot of water to a boil is usually the first step in cooking pasta — but in fact, it's possible to cook pasta in a small amount of simmering water, perfectly and without sticking. Have you ever tried it?
Cooking instructions typically recommend about 6 quarts of boiling water per pound of pasta; anything less than that and you run the risk of your pasta sticking together in a big clump. That was the accepted wisdom until Harold McGee wrote about his experiments with cooking pasta in smaller amounts of water. He found that a pound of pasta could be cooked in as little as 1.5 quarts of water, but the method was a little fussy, needing near-constant stirring to keep the noodles from sticking.
It was J. Kenji Lopez-Alt's write-up at Serious Eats that convinced me pasta cooks just as well in a small amount of simmering water, and has the added bonus of extra-starchy pasta water that is ideal for emulsifying pasta sauces. His method, which works for dry but not fresh pastas, only requires stirring during the first couple minutes of cooking, when the noodles initially release their starch. Because it's a lot faster to bring a smaller pot of water to a boil, and doesn't require as much heat to keep it at a simmer, this technique saves time and energy.
Curious? Skeptical? Take a look at the full post, which debunks some of the biggest myths about cooking pasta in a big pot of boiling water. Then try it for yourself!
→ Check it out: A New Way to Cook Pasta? at Serious Eats
Have you ever tried this method?
Related: Can I Reuse Pasta Water?
(Image: Emma Christensen)
Soda Recipe: Homemade Ginger Ale
Recipe: Spring Fruit and Nut Tabouli
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
TW Salt Mill by Wil...
Which Wall Color Gives the Best Sleep?
Ana Creates a Community at Home
I've tried it, it works. Honestly, though, I usually forget. I do heat ALL my water first in an electric kettle and then bring it back to the boil much faster than boiling on top of the stove entirely.
Thanks, I love 'alternative' ways of cooking traditional foods. If it saves time and washing up, even better! I have tried the risotto made with cold stock method that was shown on Kitchn recently. It turned out great, no discernible difference in taste.
This is my preferred pasta cooking technique because it's fast, and I don't have to run the pasta through a strainer. I've still yet to figure out how to use the starchy water for sauces, though.
I've been doing this for years, because I am a lazy and impatient cook. I hate dragging out a large pot and waiting for it to boil, so I always use the smallest pot I can get away with. I guess I no longer have to feel guilty about it! Next time I will try shutting the burner off and just steaming it (which is also how I cook corn on the cob).
Yup, it's how I cook it too. Boiling pasta in lots and lots of water never made sense to me. Although, nowadays, I'll let it boil for a few minutes, cut the heat, and let it finish cooking on its own for the same amount of time. I'm less likely to overcook my pasta this way which is nice if I'm making my own sauce.
@kristab Me too! I don't do this as a technique, I do it because I'm lazy and it's always worked just fine.
This is the only way I've ever cooked pasta. It just seems way too wasteful to use a whole large pot of water, especially if I only want to make enough for myself and no extra.
Kenji turned me onto this as well and I've done it ever since. That guy is a genius.
I like the passive cooking technique more, personally.
It is so easy, and it saves a lot of water and energy.
@KristiannaH: yes, I like passivity in the kitchen!