Moody, lanky and larger-than-life, when Anthony Bourdain walked onto the Carnegie Music Hall stage for the March 31 Drue Heinz Lecture, he conveyed that intangible aura of celebrity -- even the jaded among us felt the excitement stir in the crowd. Sadly, the rest of the night went downhill from there, as Bourdain seemed more interested in making snide comments about other TV food celebrities than talking about food or travel.

Still, Bourdain's extended description of his own food television hierarchy, combined with the timely kickoffs of new seasons of Bravo's "Top Chef" and Fox's "Hell's Kitchen," got me thinking. Do people watch these shows because they're interested in food? Or because these shows are simply good television?

Bourdain dismissed "Hell's Kitchen" and praised "Top Chef" without much explanation, but the point seems to be that "Hell's Kitchen," like Food Network shows, doesn't teach the viewer anything about food or cooking, while "Top Chef" does, and therefore the latter is somehow more legitimate than the former.

For those of you who haven't seen it, "Hell's Kitchen" is a reality show in which contestants compete for a job as a chef at an upscale restaurant and are judged by Chef Gordon Ramsay, who despite a total of 12 Michelin stars, is better known in America, at least, for his foul language and irascible temper than for his culinary talents, which are extraordinary.

This year, the prize is the job of executive chef at Gordon Ramsay's The London West Hollywood, which is scheduled to open in June. The competitors are divided into two teams and attempt to run two side-by-side kitchens at the "Hell's Kitchen" restaurant. In typical fashion, this season's contestants have committed such gaffes as failing to memorize the menu before trying to cook it. Notably, they are not supposed to be the best the restaurant industry has to offer. Most of them are line-cooks at obscure restaurants, the muscle of the culinary world.

On "Top Chef," contestants are purported to be the creme de la creme of young chefs. Many have been executive chefs at well-known, successful restaurants. (Stephanie, my current favorite, was the chef/owner of Scylla in Chicago, until she sold the restaurant last year.) Chef Tom Collicchio (co-owner of Gramercy Tavern and the Craft restaurants in various locations) and his cohorts, along with guest chefs such as Bourdain, put the contestants through their paces in "quick fire" and "elimination challenges." The winner receives $100,000 in cash along with other prizes.

Both shows attract criticism about unrealistic challenges and too much drama. But reality television is far from a reflection of reality. If these shows actually tried to re-create what it's like to work in a restaurant kitchen, even a very high-end restaurant kitchen, it would be incredibly boring.

Given these limitations, both shows still offer meaningful insight into what it's like to be a chef.

"Top Chef" does a pretty good job of allowing viewers into the creative processes that are part of being a "top chef." In this past week's episode, Lisa, Dale and Stephanie seemed doomed when they could not agree on a dish for the elimination challenge. But Lisa's insistence that they should incorporate Asian flavors, though creating a lot of tension with Dale, led to the creation of one of the show's most spectacular dishes -- grilled shrimp with pickled chile salad and bacon to represent the element fire.

"Hell's Kitchen" devotes even more of its focus to personal disputes and animosity, but it also dramatizes some of the unpleasant truths of life in the restaurant world that "Top Chef " seems to prefer to ignore. These cooks experience humiliation, they have to do hard, dirty, physical work and they often feel powerless and frustrated. In this week's episode, Ramsay had contestants dish through the trash bins behind the restaurant so they could see how much food they wasted. Disgusting? Of course. But it isn't really that different from making cooks dig through bins still in the kitchen, which is actually fairly common practice. There isn't a much better way to teach someone that they cannot throw usable product out, because it is the same thing as throwing money in the trash.

Whether you prefer "Top Chef" or "Hell's Kitchen" (or even Rachael Ray) is a matter of opinion, but the real proof of the effects of these shows can be measured by something real. Do contestants, especially winners, become food celebrities like Bourdain, or even actual, successful chefs? Unlike, say, "American Idol," where winners' albums appear mere months after the end of the show, there is a much greater lag time before winners of a show like "Top Chef" could open a restaurant. Though Web rumors abound, "Hell's Kitchen" winners seem to have disappeared back into the relative obscurity of ordinary cooks.

First-season winner of "Top Chef" Harold Dieterle finally opened Perilla in New York City in May 2007. Reviews have been, on the whole, positive. Interestingly, Dieterle doesn't seem to think that his "Top Chef" experience best represents his career. It is noticeably absent from his extremely detailed bio on the restaurant's Web site.