Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Analyzing a Baking Recipe

cookingforengineers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#41

Post by dhosek »

mikepurvis wrote: post #24
someone7x wrote: post #15

This 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 agree. Baking is for me increasingly like the rest of cooking— based on feel and adaptation, particularly where variable ingredients like eggs and fruit are involved that can vary in size/composition and necessitate corresponding adjustments to the amounts of flour and sugar. All that to say, the moisture/volume analysis is interesting from a theory point of view and would perhaps help achieve a deeper understandin…

The thing about baking though is that much greater precision is needed. I can usually just eyeball stuff for stovetop cooking, but doing the same with baking can give wildly bad results.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#43

Post by masfuerte »

jefftk wrote: post #39
masfuerte wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

That's interesting. I do bake but I'm no expert. My wettest doughs are 75%. That recipe is a bit more than 100%. I didn't think such a wet dough would hold its shape. I'm wrong again!

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#44

Post by dmoy »

dhosek wrote: post #41
mikepurvis wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Baking is for me increasingly like the rest of cooking— based on feel and adaptation, particularly where variable ingredients like eggs and fruit are involved that can vary in size/composition and necessitate corresponding adjustments to the amounts of flour and sugar. All that to say, the moisture/volume analysis is interesting from a theory point of view and would perhaps help achieve a deeper understandin…

The thing about baking though is that much greater precision is needed. I can usually just eyeball stuff for stovetop cooking, but doing the same with baking can give wildly bad results.

I agree, baking is way more difficult.

It's like a longer feedback loop. A lot of cooking is like a really tight repl - maybe even with unit tests (tasting midway through). You can see results and modify on the fly. Baking is like hardware - you might not know where the bugs are until the thing comes back from the pcb print (comes out of the oven).

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#46

Post by AlbertCory »

The master of scientific cooking is Harold McGee (On Food and Cooking)

https://www.amazon.com/Food-Cooking-Science-Lore-Kitchen/dp/...

and always has been. Nearly every serious chef has this on their shelf.

To boot, he's a super-nice guy and I talked to him a couple times when he came to Google.

Secondly, there's a fundamental difference in goals between home cooking and professional cooking. If you're doing it over and over in a restaurant, you really want it to be the same every time. If you're doing it for yourself, you need to accept and revel in the differences. If it really sucks, you just throw it out and order a pizza. Maybe next time you can do it better.

I tried to get at that in my fave recipe: no measurements.

https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/chicken-fried-rice

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#47

Post by Terr_ »

Ringz wrote: post #33
someone7x wrote: post #15

This 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 so…

It's especially frustrating when the packing density of whatever you're measuring is vague, like "2 cups of chopped leaves."

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#48

Post by mikepurvis »

dmoy wrote: post #44
dhosek wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about baking though is that much greater precision is needed. I can usually just eyeball stuff for stovetop cooking, but doing the same with baking can give wildly bad results.

I agree, baking is way more difficult. It's like a longer feedback loop. A lot of cooking is like a really tight repl - maybe even with unit tests (tasting midway through). You can see results and modify on the fly. Baking is like hardware - you might not know where the bugs are until the thing comes back from the pcb print (comes out of the oven).

People say this, but there's a lot of feedback you can still get along the way when baking— this batter is too runny or lumpy or stiff or tastes not sweet enough, or whatever else.

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#49

Post by Ringz »

Terr_ wrote: post #47
Ringz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

It's especially frustrating when the packing density of whatever you're measuring is vague, like "2 cups of chopped leaves."

It is also frustrating that there are differences between US American, Canadian, British and Australian cups. And the pure irony that „Because actual drinking cups may differ greatly from the size of this unit, standard measuring cups may be used, with a metric cup being 250 millilitres.“

Re: Analyzing a Baking Recipe

#50

Post by chihuahua »

blowski wrote: post #13
progbits wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it isn't just a conversion factor exactly for the reasons you state: a cup of flour will be different weight based on brand, how much it settled in the bag etc. Always have to deal with weights.

Do those factors also affect how much volume you need?

You want the correct amount by weight. Since volume (for the same weight) varies depending on several factors, it follows that those factors affect how much volume you need.

The technique used for measuring "1 cup" affects how much weight you get in 1 cup. This is in addition to the type of flour, clumping, how densely it was packed in the bag, etc.

Post reply on HN