How to bake your own bread — no gadgets, recipes, or kneading required



Do you know how easy it is to bake your own bread?

I didn't, and now I do. And I want to share this knowledge with you.

Want homemade sandwich bread? Just replace the water with milk or half and half and add melted butter and a tablespoon of sugar.

Once you know, it will be harder to go back to the chemical-infused grain product the big, industrialized food manufacturers tell us is "bread."

Especially since the real thing — what everyone understood as "bread" for all of human history until about 100 years ago — is cheaper, more nutritious, and doesn't taste like Styrofoam.

Sourdough ... for the rest of us

And don't worry — we're not going to ruin the fun by approaching it like neurotic, fussy "homesteading" influencers obsessed with buying shiny new equipment to make old-fashioned techniques “authentic.”

You’re not going to need a kitchen scale or a digital probe thermometer. You’re going to make something delicious and wholesome just the way your great-grandmother did, and she didn’t use any of these modern techno crutches.

With that out of the way, let’s talk about sourdough. I didn’t want to use the word before clearing the conceptual brush, because it’s contaminated with “lifestyle” associations. People imagine a complex “artisan” process that can only be achieved by some irritating guy from Minneapolis who talks in upspeak on YouTube.

A few months ago I wrote about cooking from scratch, by hand, without relying on gadgetry and GPS-style “turn by turn” directions. In that piece, I said I was going to learn to bake bread from a natural sourdough starter all by hand, with no scales, no metric-graduated beakers, and no obsessive feeding schedule.

I’ve done it. And it turned out as I thought it would. My hands now know what the right dough consistency feels like. My eyes can tell if the loaf has risen for long enough that it can be baked. The only tools I have relied on were cup measures and a glance at the clock so I know about how long the dough has been fermenting (rising). I don’t need directions or scales or thermometers because I own the knowledge in my hands and mind through direct practice.

The duds? Only about two or three loaves. My problem? Using a starter that was too weak; I hadn’t let it fully develop in the beginning culture stage before I started baking with it. Once I sorted that out, I ended up with this hearty specimen:

Josh Slocum

You’re going to make a loaf that good, and you’ll have it down by memory in one month.

Then you’ll branch out into other kinds of bread. Want homemade sandwich bread? Just replace the water with milk or half and half and add melted butter and a tablespoon of sugar. That’s all I did. Here’s the result from my first try:

Then I wanted something fancier, something like the loaves I’ve been paying $9 for at a local bakery that does it the old-fashioned way with nothing but flour, water, culture, and salt. I just added olive oil and rosemary and put fancy salt on top:

Want to do it yourself?

As I mentioned, I'm not going to give you a recipe. At least, not in the modern-day sense of a set of precisely calibrated steps and measurements designed to produce the exact same outcome every time.

Instead I'm going to give you a basic outline that forces you to absorb the process physically and by instinct, rather than just memorizing turn-by-turn directions. If you’re not afraid of plunging your hands directly into the dough and making practice loaves until you get it right, you’ll be baking like this in a few weeks.

For the starter

You’re not going to buy a starter from any of those online marketplaces. You’re going to make your own. The yeast comes from the rye flour and from the air.

Ingredients

  • Stone-ground whole rye flour. Yes, whole, and yes, rye, even if you don’t plan to make rye loaves. Rye is packed with natural yeast and bacteria that make starters get off the ground quicker than white flour.
  • Water
  • A jar

Method:

Take about a cup of whole rye flour and add enough room-temperature water to make a thick paste. And I do mean "paste" — something with the consistency of the stuff you remember using in school for papier-mâché volcanoes.

But don’t get neurotic. If it’s thinner or thicker than my paste, it’s still going to work.

Mix it well in the jar. Then take a rubber band and put it around the outside of the jar at the level where the starter is now. This is so you can see rise over time. Cover that jar loosely with a towel, cheesecloth, or a loose lid and put it in the oven with the light on. Leave it for 24 hours. Then discard half of it and add the same amount of rye flour and water back in, mix, and leave for another day.

You’re going to do this for at least seven days. After the first few days, you’ll see some bubbles. It’s not ready yet. Keep discarding and feeding. You may even notice it smells a little off the first few days. That’s normal.

By day seven (or a bit longer), you’ll notice that the starter smells sour, in a pleasant way, and yeasty. That’s what you want. At that point, you should also be seeing it double in size between feedings. If it’s not doing that, keep going with daily feedings.

Now you’ve got a stable starter. Stick it in the fridge. You can keep using rye to feed it for baking, or you can feed it white flour and convert it. I just use whatever flour I have handy because I don’t mind my loaves having mixed grains.

Your first loaf

So far we have used rye flour and water. Now to add our two final ingredients: white bread flour and salt.

Again, that's white bread flour, not all-purpose. Bread flour has a higher protein ratio, which you need for building structure and rise.

First, take your starter out of the fridge and feed it flour and water. Put it in your oven with the light on. This gives it the perfect 80 degrees F temperature that it likes. Colder than that and it takes forever. Significantly hotter than that, and you may kill the yeast.

Wait for it to double in size, three to four hours.

Take it out and mix about a half-cup of starter into about a cup and a half of room-temperature water. Put the jar of starter back in the fridge. You only need to keep about a tablespoon of it — that will inoculate all the flour the next time you feed it for baking.

In a large bowl, put in about four and a half cups of bread flour and two teaspoons of salt. Mix the salt through the flour. Now add your wet mixture of water and starter. Stir or use your hands to mix until it all comes together and there are no more dry flour spots. It will be rough and shaggy.

RELATED: Cooking is easy; it's our modern anxiety that makes it hard

The Print Collector/Getty Images

Knead? No need

Guess what? You’re not going to knead. The reason most people knead is because we have used commercial yeast since it became available in the 1860s. Commercial yeast rises in just hours, too short a time for the yeast to build the bread structure, so you have to do it by hand to develop the gluten.

Not so with sourdough, using this method. Time is going to do everything kneading does and more.

Cover the dough and put it in a cold room or cellar if you have one. Somewhere between 40 and 50 degrees F. Let it sit 18-24 hours.

This is cold fermentation, which gives you the tang of sourdough, and it makes the bread more nutritious and long-lasting before it goes stale. If you don’t have a cold room, let your dough ferment for a few hours on the counter, then put it in the refrigerator overnight.

At the end of fermentation, you are ready to bake. Preheat a Dutch oven in your oven at 450 degrees for 45 minutes. Shape your dough into a ball or loaf, and put it in the Dutch oven. Cover, put back in the oven, and bake for 30 minutes, still at 450.

Remove the lid, turn the oven down to 400, then bake for about 10 to 15 more minutes to get a golden crust.

You have made bread that is miles above the plastic grotesquerie sold at grocery stores, for almost no money and for very little effort. No scales; no precise measuring. This is how your ancestors and all humans made bread for thousands of years before the late 19th century.

If your first few loaves aren’t great, keep going.

Don’t forget to slather it in butter.

'Sugar-free' scam: How scapegoating a pantry staple is ruining our health



Sugar has had a terrible few decades in public relations. Which is rich, considering sugar never hired a publicist or lobbied for its inclusion in 37 varieties of salad dressing.

Sugar was simply sitting there, being a carbohydrate, when an entire industry decided it made a more convenient villain than portion size, impulse control, or the more uncomfortable question of why a gas station sells a beverage the size of a toddler.

Fat was the villain in 1990. Americans loaded up on SnackWell's cookies and ate them by the sleeve.

Somewhere between the obesity panic of the 2000s and the clean-eating obsession of the 2010s, sucrose transformed from a pantry staple into a health and wellness villain on par with cigarettes and sloth.

Sugar, sugar

The human body runs on glucose. Your brain needs it. Your muscles prefer it. Sugarcane has been sweetening drinks in South Asia since roughly 350 A.D., and somehow humanity survived long enough to argue about it on social media.

The problem was never the molecule but the amount — 22 teaspoons a day, the American average, poured mostly into beverages people didn’t even register as meals. A single large fountain soda contains 17. A flavored coffee drink from any chain you can name contains more than that and comes with a cheerful barista who will spell your name wrong on the cup while handing you what is essentially a dessert with a lid.

That is a dosage problem. It got rebranded as a chemistry problem, and that rebranding sold a lot of diet soda.

Gut check

I learned this the hard way, via my own stomach. For about two years I swapped sugar for artificial sweeteners with the confidence of someone who had done exactly one Google search. Sucralose (commonly sold as Splenda) in my coffee. Stevia in everything else. The occasional sugar-free chocolate that tasted like sweetened cardboard, which I ate anyway, because suffering voluntarily is how adults signal virtue.

I was, by all the metrics I had invented for myself, being responsible. Then I started feeling bloated roughly 40 minutes after every meal — a persistent, uncomfortable fullness that no amount of walking around the block seemed to fix. And then came a specific, percussive kind of digestive discomfort that I will describe only as "audible." My fiancée noticed. I blamed the dog.

I cut the sweeteners on a Friday. By Sunday, the situation had resolved itself completely. The bowel-induced thunder had passed, the barometric pressure had normalized, and my fiancée stopped sleeping with the window open.

Metabolic mayhem

It turns out that I was ahead of the research for once in my life. A recent study examining the biological effects of common artificial sweeteners — sucralose and stevia, specifically — found that even quantities comparable to everyday human consumption altered gut microbiome composition in measurable ways.

The gut houses roughly 39 trillion microorganisms, meaning it contains more bacterial cells than human cells, a fact that raises serious questions about who, exactly, is running things. It regulates metabolism, modulates immune response, produces neurotransmitters, and sends chemical signals to the brain, influencing mood and appetite. The body is less a person than a committee, and the committee has opinions about your sweetener choices.

Disrupt the ecosystem, and you get disrupted systems downstream. The researchers found that beneficial compounds helping maintain metabolic health declined in subjects exposed to these sweeteners. In plain terms, the body became measurably worse at handling sugar, and it had not consumed any sugar to arrive there. The sweetener had taught the body a new dysfunction without any of the calories required to earn it.

RELATED: Save your brain: Eat more meat

Bettman/Getty Images

Sweet surrender

The findings on sucralose were particularly persistent. Researchers observed that its effects on gut bacteria and gene activity carried across multiple generations in animal studies. Offspring who had never consumed sucralose showed early signs of impaired glucose regulation — their bodies struggling with sugar metabolism as an inherited consequence of a parent's diet.

This is epigeneticism: the transmission of acquired biological traits through changes in gene expression rather than DNA sequence. Stevia's impacts were detectable but short-lived, fading rather than compounding. Neither result fits the marketing promise of a neutral, calorie-free pleasure. Both suggest that the quest to outsmart biology with chemistry has, predictably, run into biology itself.

Americans consume artificial sweeteners at scale. They are in diet drinks, protein bars, flavored yogurts, chewing gum, children's vitamins, and roughly half the products shelved in the "healthy" aisle of any grocery store. Meanwhile, rates of obesity, insulin resistance, and metabolic disorders remain stubbornly high — exactly the conditions these products were engineered to help prevent. The sweeteners are not the sole explanation. But the idea that they carry zero metabolic consequences is no longer a position the evidence supports, and it was probably never as solid as the packaging implied.

The M-word

None of this requires burning your Splenda packets in the back yard, but the broader pattern is familiar enough to be dispiriting. Fat was the villain in 1990. Americans loaded up on SnackWell's cookies — fat-free, proudly labeled, stuffed with sugar — and ate them by the sleeve because the math seemed to check out. Sugar became the villain in 2010. Americans loaded up on artificially sweetened alternatives and called it progress.

The villain rotates on a roughly 20-year cycle. The processed food industry introduces the replacement, funds the science that endorses it, and collects the revenue while researchers spend the next decade figuring out what went wrong. Then a new villain is identified, a new replacement is launched, and somewhere a marketing team opens a bottle of champagne that probably contains aspartame.

The answer to every panic in that cycle was always moderation, a word so aggressively boring that it apparently requires a global dietary crisis every 10 years to get anyone's attention. It also means reframing what sugar actually is: not a poison to be eliminated but a pleasure to be savored, like good whiskey or compliments from your father. Save it for a nice piece of cake, a well-made dessert, the occasional spoon of honey stirred into morning tea with the uncomplicated satisfaction of someone who has stopped reading the label.

Here’s How To Cook Good Food On $15 A Day Or Less

The $15-a-day debate is about whether we still value self-reliance, basic household skills, and personal responsibility.

How RFK’s New Dietary Chart Will Save American Lives

These new dietary guidelines aren't just about food; they’re about restoring credibility and aligning policy with science.

Trump Admin’s New Nutrition Guidelines Aim To End Corporate Profiteering On Americans’ Poor Health

Trump administration officials expect myriad positive benefits from the implementation of the updated guidelines.

We all want healthy lunches for our kids — so why the partisan food fight?



The government shouldn’t be in the business of buying junk food for school children.

Of all the positions splitting Americans today, you wouldn’t expect this one to be controversial. And yet this is the plate we've been served.

Each side accuses the other of not caring about disadvantaged children — while both sides insist that no one should dictate what counts as 'healthy' food.

The Healthy SNAP Act of 2025 is currently awaiting action in the Senate Agriculture Committee, where it has sat since Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced it in February, with no markup or vote scheduled.

Even so, the bill — now championed by Republicans — has revived a familiar argument: Who should decide what children eat, and why do voters reverse their positions depending on which party proposes the rules?

Lunch lady

President Obama enacted his wife’s Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010 with the stated goal of providing USDA-approved nutritious meals to school children and combating childhood hunger and obesity. Michelle Obama advocated for children to have access to more vegetables, fruit, whole grains, and milk — and less sugary soda and junk food — which she claimed were especially hurting impoverished children.

“Think about why someone is OK with your kids eating crap,” she said at the time. “Because here is the secret — if someone is doing that, they don’t care about your kid.”

Conservatives pushed back, suspecting Mrs. Obama of ulterior motives and calling the law an instance of government overreach. Whose business was it what children ate? Surely not the first lady's.

There was a lot of fear (or hope) that when Trump got into office, he would overturn all that the Obamas had done and “simplify” the lunch menu.

No (burger) kings

The new president did not disappoint. Throughout his first term, President Trump steadily rolled back Obama-era school-nutrition standards. The USDA first relaxed rules on whole grains, sodium, and flavored milk in 2017 and finalized those changes in 2018. In early 2020, it proposed further revisions to ease fruit and vegetable requirements and expand options like pizza and burgers, drawing renewed national scrutiny.

Those efforts were partially blocked in court, and the underlying Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act remained intact. But the political terrain shifted over the next few years: Rising concern about obesity and chronic disease, new dietary-guideline updates, and state-level experiments with SNAP restrictions created an opening for conservatives to reframe nutrition policy as a matter of fiscal responsibility and public health rather than federal overreach.

Menu change

Fast-forward to 2025, and the same movement that once dismissed “nanny-state” lunch rules now promotes the Healthy SNAP Act — an initiative that mirrors Michelle Obama’s nutrition goals almost point for point.

All that's changed is the politician behind the policy. That alone seems to be enough to flip public opinion. Voters who once said junk food was victimizing impoverished children now attack nearly identical proposals coming from the Trump administration.

The Healthy SNAP Act of 2025 would bar SNAP benefits from being used for the very same foods Michelle Obama targeted in 2010. According to Congress.gov, SNAP recipients would not be able to use benefits for “soft drinks, candy, ice cream, or prepared desserts, such as cakes, pies, cookies, or similar products.”

RELATED: $500 million in SNAP funds is reportedly spent on fast food because of state program

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Where's the beef?

Foods purchased with SNAP would have to meet nutritional standards based on sugar, fat, and salt content. In structure, the bill is strikingly similar to the Obama-era reforms. The only real difference is whose name is on it.

The same people who supported Michelle Obama’s restrictions now vehemently oppose nearly identical measures from Trump. Meanwhile those who once denounced government interference now applaud the idea when framed as a conservative reform. Each side accuses the other of not caring about poor children — while both sides insist that no one should dictate what counts as “healthy” food, unless their politician is doing the dictating. Party comes first, safety second, liberty somewhere further down the list.

Some liberals now argue that children deserve a treat — that SNAP should not limit junk-food purchases at all. But SNAP has always been regulated. In most states, fast food, hot deli meals, vitamins, alcohol, and tobacco have long been prohibited. WIC is even more restrictive to ensure mothers receive high-quality, protein-rich foods.

SNAP decision

Government aid will always come with rules. Whether it should include “treats” is a matter of personal philosophy. SNAP already provides incentives to buy fresh produce at farmers markets. Families can still make simple desserts within existing guidelines.

And any parent can spend a dollar on an occasional donut or soda if that is truly important to them — while still ensuring that children have reliable access to nutritious meals funded by taxpayers, who can rest easier at night knowing we are ensuring a better future for children.

Reasonable readers at this point should be asking themselves what they, as voters, really care about when it comes to policies like this. Would any of this be a discussion if voters thought less about who was in office? We all should be asking ourselves what it is we truly value and act accordingly.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — who in March introduced a similar, and in some respects even broader, bill of his own — put it this way:

"It makes no sense that taxpayer dollars are being used to fund an epidemic of obesity and diet-related illness in low-income communities. My bill ensures that this assistance program actually supports health and wellness, not chronic disease.”

His words sound eerily interchangeable with what Michelle Obama was saying 15 years ago. It makes one wonder if perhaps we don’t need to bicker over politics as much as we do. Maybe our differences aren't as pronounced as we think — at least when it comes to the health of American children.

Sen. Ernst Introduces Bill To End Blue States’ Fast-Food SNAP Abuse

Sen. Ernst introduced a bill that seeks to cut off a SNAP loophole that's allowed users to spend benefits at fast-food restaurant chains.

Illegal Aliens Milk SNAP For Taxpayer-Funded Free Food

The SNAP program is so generous it feeds people in a home who are not eligible for the program.

Kraft Heinz, General Mills Join List Of Companies Removing Artificial Dyes From Their Products Amid MAHA Efforts

Kennedy has argued that the removal of artificial coloring is a crucial step in improving the health of American children.