I'm a cookie baker, and in my opinion, all the cookies except Chocolate Krinkles can be baked a week in advance if stored in airtight (!) containers. I don't know why the CK can't be baked ahead, but as many times as I've made them, I find them not very fresh-tasting after a couple of days...? They always seem to be dried out and stale no matter how I store them.

I was intrigued, since that seems to be the universal description, so I ran it down. The All-Clad site even says "porcelain" but doesn't explain. A customer review on Cooking.com says "heavy, non-metal insert". Here's a description from Metrokitchen.com: With the All-Clad Copper-Core porcelain double boiler insert, you can melt chocolate or gently reheat foods with confidence. This duo features a 2 quart sauce pan made of five layers of metal, including a core, copper layer to generate optimum heat distribution and conductivity. The 1.5 quart insert has a porcelain base to be placed over gently simmering water. You'll gain optimal temperature control of delicate ingredients without the threat of scorching or burning foods. This set comes with two lids to fit each piece individually. The All-Clad Copper-Core porcelain double boiler insert includes the following items:* Exterior pot is a 2 quart All-Clad Copper Core sauce pot* Insert is white porcelain with a capacity of 1.5 quarts* The porcelain comes with a stainless ring that fits around it. This ring has a handle to make the insert easier and safer to remove from the exterior pot* All-Clad stainless lid* Fully-clad All-Clad Copper Core cookware is made in the USA. Lids are currently being made in Asia. AHA! Progress! Then I found a much better picture on good old Houzz: Here's another view from Jlhufford.com It's a porcelain bowl grafted onto an All-Clad pot handle! It's actually a pretty cool design. It gets to be their signature stainless steel, but still a perfectly non-reactive interior. They have a larger one that they say is non-reactive because it's 18/10 stainless, and that's sort of true, but the porcelain is better. :) The picture at Chef's Arsenal that confounded you is probably of that bigger insert. OTOH, the shape isn't the most convenient looking. I haven't found a picture of the interior, but, for whisking, a true bowl shape works better, and, especially, a wider opening so you have room to work sideways, rather than up and down. Pyrex, Duralex, Arc and Anchor Hocking all make appropriate glass bowls. :) They're often sold as cheap open stock at grocery stores that have housewares sections, and they also come in nesting sets. Very useful things to have around. I have the Arc set, an extra from the "Arcoroc" days that was my mothers (most useful size and most used) and an extra set of the four smallest. You could check the market for a good bowl to use as a double boiler. :)

The yogurt shouldn't be a problem reacting with yeast. Yeast actually works best in a mildly acidic environment, which is why ascorbic acid is often mixed with dry yeast products. To improve the rise of breads containing wheat germ and whole wheat flour (which contains wheat germ), I always add an acid ingredient to counteract the gluten-damaging effects of glutathione in the wheat germ. Bacteria (in yogurt and also present in bread dough made without yogurt) produces those tasty acids in bread dough that improve the flavors of bread when we refrigerate it. The acidity already present in sourdough starters help sourdough breads keep longer, inhibit mold growth and also slows staling, and you'll see the same qualities in breads made with yogurt. -Grainlady

I really DO think it's the large amount of whey in this recipe that causes the low volume and coarse crumb structure. The reason I suggested scalding the whey (just as some recipes call for scalded milk - both milk and whey have the same isolated protein that causes this bread problem) is that heating it deactivates the isolated protein in the whey (or milk) that causes the volume and structure problems. This is especially important when using the large amount of whey used in the recipe. If you were to only use 1/2 c. of whey per loaf (use water for the remaining liquid), it probably wouldn't be a big (or as big) a factor, but I would still scald it first. If you want to change one thing as a test the next time you make this recipe, scald the whey FIRST (and allow to cool before adding it to the recipe). How to scald the whey: Heat in a saucepan to just under boiling temperature (180-190-degrees F). You will see small bubbles on the edge of the pan. Cool to lukewarm temperature. If you don't have higher-protein flour available, then you will have to work with what you have available and should be fine. Just don't expect high-rising loaves of bread. A sponge will help improve the texture and flavor. That rest also allows the gluten in the flour to develop by soaking up the liquid, rather than developing the gluten by manipulation which happens during proper mixing and kneading. A minimum of 30-minutes will work, but the ideal resting time for a sponge, according to "experts", is 2-1/2-hours. I would you make the sponge with the whole wheat flour in the recipe since it will help soften the bran and hydrate the gluten. Those sharp shreds of bran in the flour can actually cut the gluten strands during kneading. I used a sponge method with my 100% whole wheat bread recipe and would allow it to sit 12-hours (or overnight). If I was in a hurry I would only sponge it for 2-1/2-hours. As to "why most bread recipes using whey do not recommend a second rise", I have never heard that was the case using whey, but there is always something new to learn on the subject of bread making. BUT, about second rises - back when our flour was bromated (a chemical conditioner) bread dough had more extensibility and would be able to perform well with the additional bulk rise, then the final rise after the dough was formed. Today, I would be more concerned whether the yeast would be able to stay active with an additional bulk rise, and I would make sure to use a dough rising bucket (or a straight-sided plastic container with a lid) so you could actually see how much your dough had risen in order to avoid over-proofing. When you press dough into a dough rising bucket and it comes up to the 1-quart line, it has doubled when it reaches the 2-quart line - how simple is that.... You can use an unmarked container (as long as it has enough volume and straight sides) and measure the dough with a ruler, double that amount and mark it on the side of the container to show when it has doubled. Don't let the dough rise OVER double or you will be over-proofing it, and just UNDER double is better - especially if you use two bulk rises. If you use a slant-sided bowl for proofing dough it will never be accurate because the top is wider than the bottom. If you use the poke it with the finger method to test it, that is ALSO completely unreliable. The lack of bromated flour is also the reason allowing dough to rise to "double" in bulk is actually allowing it to rise just a little too much. Just under "double" is actually a better choice, especially when using whole wheat flour and a gluten-free flour with all-purpose flour. Those three types of flour just don't have the extensibility needed. Hope that helps a bit..... -Grainlady