If Episode 3 intensified criticism of 100 Cooks‘ elimination format, another controversy may be generating even more discussion among viewers.

According to many fans, one of the biggest problems with the competition is becoming impossible to ignore:

Some contestants have still not cooked a single dish.

Three episodes into the season, viewers have started tracking which home cooks have actually competed and which have remained in the stadium stands throughout the entire competition.

The discovery has sparked a heated debate across the 100 Cooks fan community.

While some contestants have already been called down multiple times to face high-pressure challenges, others have yet to step into the kitchen even once.

For critics of the format, that creates a fundamental fairness issue.

Many viewers argue that advancing through multiple rounds without ever having to demonstrate cooking ability goes against the core concept of a cooking competition.

“It’s hard to evaluate who’s actually good when some people haven’t been tested at all,” one common sentiment among fans has been.

Others point out that contestants selected to cook are carrying nearly all the risk. Every time they enter the arena, they face the possibility of elimination, while contestants in the stands continue advancing simply by not being chosen.

The debate has become especially intense following Episode 3, where eight cooks were eliminated despite dozens of competitors never touching a stove that night.

As a result, some fans believe the show is unintentionally rewarding luck as much as cooking skill.

If a contestant survives several episodes without being selected, they may find themselves deep into the competition despite having provided little evidence of their abilities.

Meanwhile, stronger cooks could be eliminated early simply because they were repeatedly chosen to compete.

The issue has become one of the most discussed topics among viewers online.

Across fan forums and social media discussions, many are asking the same question:

Should contestants be allowed to progress this far without ever being tested?

Supporters of the current format argue that unpredictability is part of what makes 100 Cooks different from traditional cooking competitions. They believe the random selection process creates tension and forces everyone to stay prepared.

However, critics counter that the system works only if every contestant eventually gets a relatively equal opportunity to compete.

At the moment, many viewers feel that balance has not been achieved.

What makes the controversy even more significant is that 100 Cooks has not yet developed the kind of major interpersonal drama typically seen in reality competition shows. There is no clear villain, no dominant alliance, and no season-defining feud.

Instead, the format itself has become the story.

As the competition continues and the number of remaining cooks shrinks, pressure is growing on the show to address what many fans see as its biggest structural flaw.

Whether producers make adjustments later in the season remains to be seen.

For now, one fact continues to fuel debate:

Some contestants have already fought for survival multiple times, while others are still waiting for their very first chance to prove they belong in the competition at all.