this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
68 points (95.9% liked)

Asklemmy

48001 readers
804 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm sick of having to look up what country an author is from to know which variant of teaspoon they're using or how big their lemons are compared to mine. It's amateur hour out there, I want those homely family recipes up to standard!

What are some good lessons from scientific documentation which should be encouraged in cooking recipes? What are some issues with recipes you've seen which have tripped you up?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

I think a major one is to try to avoid trusting in unfounded precision.

If you want to make lemonade like a chemist, you don't just weigh out some lemon juice and add it to water and sugar. You measure sugar and citric acid content of the batch of lemon juice, then calculate how much water will dilute it to the right pH, and how much sugar will bring it to your desired osmolarity. In reality, no one is going to do that unless they run a business and need a completely repeatable. If you get lazy and just weigh out the same mass of stuff with a new batch of lemon juice, you could be way off. Better to just make it and taste it then adjust. Fruits, vegetables, and meats are not consistent products, so you can't treat them as such.

If i were to be writing recipes for cooking, I would have fruits/vegetables/meats/eggs listed by quantity, not mass (e.g., 1 onion, 1 egg), but i would include a rough mass to account for regional variations in size (maybe your carrots are twice the size of mine). Spices i would not give amounts for because they are always to taste. At most, I would give ratios (e.g. 50% thyme, 25% oregano). Lots of people have old, preground spices, so they will need to use much more than someone using whole spices freshly ground. I think salt could be given as a percentage of total mass of other ingredients, but desired salinity is a wide range, so i would have to aim low and let people adjust upward.

Baking is a little different, and I really like cookbooks that use bakers percentages, however, they don't work well for ingredients like egg that I would want to use in discrete increments. For anything with flour, I would specify brand and/or protein level. A European trying to follow an American bread recipe will likely end up disappointed because European flour usually has lower protein (growing conditions are different), which will result in different outcomes.

I will say in defense of teaspoons, most home cooks have scales that have a 1 gram resolution, though accuracy is questionable if you are only measuring a few grams or less. Teaspoons (and their smaller fractions) are going to be more accurate for those ingredients. Personally, I just have a second, smaller scale with greater resolution.

[–] ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

I just want cups gone for solids (and viscous stuff). It’s such an idiotic system. 1 cup of diced carrot … wtf how should I go about measuring that in the grocery store? Just tell me 1 large carrot or by weight.

I know it doesn’t need to be exact but it just doesn’t make sense to do it this way. Even with imperial units, you have ounces, why not use that?

[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Ounces suck because they are used as a weight and a volume, and I can't ever be sure which one a particular recipe is using.

Damn, the imperial system really is messed up…

[–] chaosCruiser@futurology.today 8 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Food science is truly complex, so in order to accurately replicate a recipe, you need to standardize pretty much everything. Currently, there’s plenty of variation and you just compensate by winging it and keeping an eye on the pot a little longer.

In order to reduce variation, we need to standardize the following:

  • ingredients: The composition of meat and carrots varies a lot.
  • heating methods: An oven set to 200 °C is not exactly 200 ° at every location and all the time.
  • weigh everything: Volumes are complicated and messy.
  • use a timer: This applies to all actions like stirring, heating etc.

All materials and methods should be accurately documented, because things like the coating or weight of your pan can introduce unwanted variability.

[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

Diameter of pots is big, too. You get way more evaporation with a wider pot.

[–] xavier666@lemm.ee 9 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You should check out the super old website called "cooking for engineers".

[–] Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)
[–] xavier666@lemm.ee 2 points 11 hours ago
[–] bblkargonaut@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago

I'm an American biochemist, I also never learned the english system because my school transitioned to metric too fast. The mental burden of trying to cook using english units after working all day in the lab using that same part of my brain leads me to just not want to cook 95% of the time. But when I do cook I have optimized processes for my few simple recipes. When I bake I usually use a metric recipe or convert a English one, and optimize it before making a large batch of something.

[–] doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Recipes should be written with the quantities in the procedure. So instead of reading

Mix flour, salt and sugar in a large mixing bowl

It should be

Mix flour (300g), salt (1/4 tsp), and sugar (20g) in a large mixing bowl

That way you don't need to read/refer to ingredient list, read/refer to ingredient list, etc

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 6 points 15 hours ago

I really appreciate the recent trend of done cooking websites to do this on mouseover. Best of both worlds for readability and convenience. Not great when you're in the kitchen and not using a mouse, I'd hope a mobile or printable version just writes it out like you did there. Love Auto scaling recipes too where you can click to adjust number of servings, bonus points if they have some logic so they don't tell you to use .71 eggs or something.

[–] dumples@midwest.social 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was a professional chemist for around ~7 and love to cook. My suggestion is to stop expecting precision with an imprecise and natural product like cooking. Are your lemons larger? They also might be sweeter, tarter, juicer etc. than others. Same thing with teaspoons. The spices you are using may be more or less concentrated than who wrote it.

Lean into the uncertainty and be free. Double or even triple spices to see if you like it. Measure with your heart

[–] Zenith@lemm.ee 5 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

That’s just people who know how to cook, beginners want to follow recipes to a T and almost always come up with sub par results to someone who knows how to cook because they already incorporate what you’ve mentioned. This is just “make sure people cooking know how to cook” lol

[–] dumples@midwest.social 9 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I was thinking saying that expecting precision from a natural product is a fools errand. So embrace the imperfection and go crazy

[–] joshthewaster@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Yep. imperfection is a feature not a bug.

Trying to eliminate every variable and be able to follow a precise formula is absurd. And if you manage to do that you are going to make food that is as good as what you can buy in the frozen section of any grocery store. That highly processed stuff is made by eliminating all the variables and following a precise formula.

Just enjoy the variation, taste your ingredients and food at every step you can and adjust until you like it.

[–] dumples@midwest.social 1 points 5 hours ago

There are science behind cooking but its mostly with methods instead of inputs. If anyone is interested [Salt Fat Acid Heat](https://www.saltfatacidheat.com/] and (The Food Lab)[https://www.amazon.com/Food-Lab-Cooking-Through-Science/dp/0393081087] are more scientific about methods and made for home cooks. You can also look at On Food and Cooking which is much more textbook like about the science of cooking. Its there but not in standardized measurements and units for recipes

[–] chobeat@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago

Cooking is not a standardized or reproducible process at home, because the variables outside of anybody's control. Modern mass recipes give only the illusion of being reproducible algorithms, but they will never achieve that.

Grappling with the complexity of different tooling, supply chains, seasonality and so on, all within a recipe, is a futile effort. That complexity must be handled outside the recipe.

[–] b34k@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (3 children)

All solids should be listed by weight.

All liquids should be listed by volume.

SI units only. (Grams for solids, mL for liquids)

More graduated cylinders and volumetric flasks in the kitchen please.

[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

Why would you want anything by volume? Mass is so much easier. 50 ml of honey is way more annoying to get into a recipe than dumping it right into whatever container the rest of the ingredients are in while it's sat on a scale.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

5ml of vanilla is a lot easier to measure than by weight would be

[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

To be honest, I don't think I've ever measured vanilla, it goes right in the bowl, lol. Small quantities are often easier by volume, though, for sure.

[–] b34k@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

Sure, we could say viscous liquids can use mass. I’d say most liquids with a viscosity close to water will be easier to measure out by volume than risk over pouring when going right into weigh boat / mixing bowl.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 hours ago

I agree. Mass all the way. It's especially complicated when the liquids are viscous and stick to your measuring vessel.

The only time volume is permitted is if it's too light for a typical kitchen scale to measure.

[–] klemptor@startrek.website 4 points 1 day ago

We should all use Einstein-Landauer units.

[–] AnnaFrankfurter@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I thought SI Unit for volume is m3

[–] chaosCruiser@futurology.today 2 points 16 hours ago

True, but square and cubic units are inconvenient due to the way prefixes work. Use liters to solve that problem.

[–] isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

same thing, one cubic centimeter is one ml

[–] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

But 1L is not 1m³

Liters are non-SI

[–] isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

1L is 1dm³ (10cm³)

They aren't "official" SI units but i'd much rather see liters then teaspoons

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This would only make sense, if all people were baking with the exact same ingredients, in the exact same environment, with the exact same equipment. You know, like in a factory.

For households and the like, it makes sense to have a bit of variation, until you find the way that makes it perfect for you.

[–] blackbrook@mander.xyz 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

People should try to think of recipes as performance notes, not as magical formulas. "This is how I made this, this time."

[–] Aksamit@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 hours ago

This goes for baking too. Baking is no more science than cooking, and cooking is no more an art than baking. People who claim otherwise annoy me.

You need to figure out what ratios of what, do what in your recipes, and then explore how that can change with different brands/varieties of the same ingredients, different ovens, humidities, elevations if you travel, etc. Book learning can only get you so far, you need to put in the kitchen time to really understand.

The art of making good food is in being able to recreate and adapt all the science experiments you did.

[–] epicstove@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

This is pretty much how so many experienced home cooks eventually get to the point where they can eyeball the amount of each ingredient they need.

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 14 points 1 day ago (10 children)

Autist and scientist here: you're thinking of baking. Baking is the science one, cooking is infuriating because all of those really vague and inaccurate instructions are in fact as precise and accurate as they need to be. Seasoning is done with the heart, you do have to stir or knead u ntil it "looks right", "a handful" is the right amount to add. The only way to find the "right" amounts is to cook over and over until you instinctively know what enough looks like.

Anyway the ingredient I really really hate is from Jamie Oliver's "working girl's" pasta, where he lists "2 big handfuls of really ripe tomatoes". I HAVE CANNED TOMATOES YOURE GETTING CANNED TOMATOES JAMIE, I DONT HAVE FUCKING TIME TO GO LOOKONG FOR REALKY RIPE TOMATOES

Also standard teaspoon is 5ml. Just use that and taste to see if it needs more.

[–] cattywampas@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Even with baking, once you get good and learn what ingredients can be fanagled with, there's definitely wiggling room like with cooking.

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago

There is wiggle room in baking, but it relies on a deeper understanding of the ingredients than cooking. If a recipe wants 250g of flour and you only have 200g, you have to adjust the amounts of sugars and fats as well, and while the flavourings have a lot more wiggle room, some of them still require swapping out base ingredients for them to maintain the correct ratios.
With cooking if a recipe calls for 500g of potatoes and you only have 300g you can just put 300g in and keep cooking. Recipe calls for 300g tomatoes but you don't want to waste the last quarter of your 400g can? We're having an extra tomato-y sauce tonight. You have a lot more room to change ingredients around without it having a significant effect on the rest of the recipe.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 day ago

I've been cooking at home, and occasionally in restaurants, since I was about ten or so. So, 40ish years.

No single standard is better than the others. It does suck that there isn't a single one that is used as a base, and then gets converted by the cook into their preferred units and structure, but even that has issues.

The good news is that most cooking, and even most baking, is very forgiving of the kind of discrepancies between sizes of lemons, onions, etc. You don't really run into trouble until you're dealing with things that react chemically based on the ratio of ingredients, which is still most common in baking, and not even all baking.

Even in those types of recipes, it's usually flour that's the problem, not leaveners, since flour compacts readily and to a high degree. But, then again, most modern recipes like that are going to be in weight measures, or in baker's ratios. You'd be using a scale for the fiddly recipes.

So, generally, just guesstimate your produce size the first time you make something. It's not going to be so far off that the results will suck if the dish itself doesn't. Then you tweak things until it fits what you prefer, which is what happens anyway as you build your recipe book/collection.

My old recipe book had scribbled notes in the margins from years of refinements. When I copied that into a digital recipe manager, I added them in directly. Now, I'm able to just enter the original recipe, then add my notes as parentheticals or whatever as I refine.

Even with those detailed notes, a given recipe won't always be reproducible as exactly the same. That's because you just can't standardize everything. You use good produce, there's going to be varying water content, slight differences in flavor compounds, more or less sugars, so to get the same results over time, the cook has to know how to adjust for those things on the fly.

Of equal import is that no matter how scientific your process of recipe development is, the table is never the same as the cook. My taste buds and brain aren't the same as my wife's, my kid's, my cousin's, etc. So there's limits to the benefits of standardized recipes on the plate.

Now, formatting? That's a huge help.

You want your ingredient list to include instructions about when an ingredient is used in multiple places. You want lists broken down in sections when a recipe calls for multiple procedures (like making the main dish, a sauce, and a crust).

In the instructions, make sure the ingredient quantities are included for redundancy.

If there's an instruction about duration that's variable explain what the variables change. As in: bake for 10 to 15 minutes. Okay, great. What's the difference? If my stove runs hot and I go for the short time, will I see golden brown, and will 15 be burnt or just really dark? Yeah, you can't expect identical results from one circumstance to the next, but at least drop an "until golden brown" at the very minimum.

That applies to any variable, imo, but it can get to be too much detail in complicated recipe.

Cooking and baking are chemistry, physics. But they're also an art. The more you try to strip a recipe of flexibility, the less successful it's going to be for the next cook.

[–] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

If you're asking scientists about writing protocols, you clearly don't know how scientific protocols work. If anything, scientists need to take lessons from recipe writers on how to write protocols. Scientific protocols are notoriously difficult to replicate.

Here's a burger recipe written like a scientific methodology:

Raw beef patties (Carshire Butcher) were prepared on a grill (Grillman) according to manufacturer's instructions. The burger was assembled with the prepared patties, burger bun (Lee Bakery), lettuce (Jordan Farms), American cheese (Cairn Dairy), and various toppings as necessary. Condiments were used where appropriate. Assembled burgers were served within 15 minutes of completion.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›