This is absolute nonsense.
Analyzing a Baking Recipe
31–40 of 71 posts
Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe
#32Baking is not science, it is art. Don't over engineer it.
Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe
#33This strikes me as a pointless refactoring of baking because it mostly serves to make the engineer feel smart. When engineering is applied to cooking, it usually looks a lot more like Kenji Alt-Lopez and his peers when they refactor a recipe to produce a classic dish without any superstitious steps.
I'm always amazed at how fiercely some defend measuring by volume instead of by mass. I've had tougher discussions on Reddit about "cups" than about nuclear energy.
Sometimes I think people just lack experience with a good scale. Once you understand what the tare button is for, there really aren't any problems. Also, with a good scale, after you press tare, it can count into the negative. So, if I need 10 grams of something and don't want to dirty another small bowl, I can place the jar with the item on the scale, press tare, and remove stuff until it reads -10 grams.
Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, as long as we're talking in ratios instead of absolute amounts. The difference between "a pinch of baking powder" vs "5 grams of baking powder" is about a factor of 20. I think the main differences between baking and other cooking are that: 1) There are often very large ratios of certain ingredients in baking which -- except for spices -- is not generally the case in other cooking; 2) You can often taste…
I bought a scale a number of years back and, yes, I pretty much universally use it for baking--it's just easier as well as being more repeatable/accurate--and rarely for other types of cooking.
scales are wonderful for measuring oil/liquid though. Putting a bowl on a scale and pouring 54 grams of olive oil is so much easier and accurate then measuring out 3 table spoons of oil
Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe
#35This strikes me as a pointless refactoring of baking because it mostly serves to make the engineer feel smart. When engineering is applied to cooking, it usually looks a lot more like Kenji Alt-Lopez and his peers when they refactor a recipe to produce a classic dish without any superstitious steps.
This blog was created in 2004 which coincides with the peak of Alton Brown's show "Good Eats" and the introduction of more "scientific cooking". Perhaps the name was inspired by that? Though the "about" section on the webpage claims the name was chosen without too much consideration.
> About the name: Cooking For Engineers Michael selected the name "Cooking For Engineers" on a whim. He has no idea if it means "To cook for the purposes of providing engineers with food" or "To instruct engineers in the science and art of cooking". He likes the ambiguity, and other people seem to find the name intriguing and even interesting. He regrets that the name can be misread (when in a rush) to be "Cooking Foreigners".
This is just some food for thought, but I think taking a scientific approach to home cooking can make it more accessible to men. By that I mean: making home cooking seem less like caregiving and more like "rational science" legitimizes it as a masculine activity. Thus allowing men to enjoy it, judgment-free.
Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bought a scale a number of years back and, yes, I pretty much universally use it for baking--it's just easier as well as being more repeatable/accurate--and rarely for other types of cooking.
scales are wonderful for measuring oil/liquid though. Putting a bowl on a scale and pouring 54 grams of olive oil is so much easier and accurate then measuring out 3 table spoons of oil
I find those sorts of measurements are less likely to be given in recipes though. I do agree that weight is generally better than volume when it's given in a recipe.
Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe
#37[This is wrong; see below] > Some grids are empty because it would not make sense for them to exist. For example, a very moist bread (0.60) with a low butter content would be airy and tasteless. Eh? A simple baguette recipe - water, flour, starter and salt - has no fat and more moisture than this. And is very tasty. Wholemeal sourdough recipes are wetter still.
I don't think a baguette recipe is 0.6 by their definition? Their "0.60" would mean 3C of water to 5C flour. I'd expect a baguette to be around 0.50 (1C of water to 2C of flour). (They're not using baker's percentages)
I think we're both wrong! I was forgetting they were measuring in volume not mass. A cup of flour weighs about half of what a cup of water weighs. So 1C water to 2C flour is roughly equal masses, or a baker's percentage of 100%. That's too wet for a loaf. 0.6 on their scale is more water than flour, so it would probably resemble a batter. They are right that it wouldn't make a good loaf.
Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe
#38Seems to completely disregard basic physics and chemistry which determine whether baked goods work. The conclusions at the bottom underscore this, in things like casually mentioning acidity, or the idea that you can't knead a high-hydration dough, or mentioning a "leavening ratio" of dry good without considering the other ingredients that will be modifying pH, mechanical action (mixing/kneading changing the result),…
This is what happens when people think they're smart just because they were good at school.
Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think a baguette recipe is 0.6 by their definition? Their "0.60" would mean 3C of water to 5C flour. I'd expect a baguette to be around 0.50 (1C of water to 2C of flour). (They're not using baker's percentages)
I think we're both wrong! I was forgetting they were measuring in volume not mass. A cup of flour weighs about half of what a cup of water weighs. So 1C water to 2C flour is roughly equal masses, or a baker's percentage of 100%. That's too wet for a loaf. 0.6 on their scale is more water than flour, so it would probably resemble a batter. They are right that it wouldn't make a good loaf.
Thanks! I don't cook baguettes; my ratio came from the first recipe I found looking online: https://lechefswife.com/baking-baguettes-for-beginners/
Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe
#40Baking is not science, it is art. Don't over engineer it.
Disagree. Baking is science. Cooking is art.