3 ms·

I wonder to what extent it’s attempts to game the auto-nutrition facts. That said, is anyone actually measuring a tablespoon of oil? I just pour a glug of a si

I wonder to what extent it’s attempts to game the auto-nutrition facts. That said, is anyone actually measuring a tablespoon of oil? I just pour a glug of a size proportional to the ingredients and adjust as needed.

freddie_mercury 3y ago
Everyone has to start somewhere. If you take a university student who has just left home and never cooked for themselves and tell them "just pour a glug proportional to the ingredients"...that's pretty close to useless for them, especially since they don't yet an intuition for what things you can freehand (and how much you can freehand them) and which things you shouldn't. After all, you (probably) wouldn't ever say "I just open the Morton's salt and pour a glug in" because getting salt wrong even by relatively small amounts has a big impact on the final dish. That said, I agree with you that recipe writers usually do a poor job of laying which things fall more on the "suggested amount, you can just eye ball it" end of the spectrum and which ones are "you should really pull out at least a spoon to get close on this one".
- OJFord 3y ago
  > After all, you (probably) wouldn't ever say "I just open the Morton's salt and pour a glug in" because getting salt wrong even by relatively small amounts has a big impact on the final dish. Not GP and I wouldn't phrase it quite like that - but I definitely would. You can give a rough indication, but salt should be added to taste. (Unless we're talking about baking, where for one thing you can't taste until the end anyway. In that case yes of course measure, still to taste, but the feedback loop is longer.)
- astura 3y ago
  >After all, you (probably) wouldn't ever say "I just open the Morton's salt and pour a glug in" because getting salt wrong even by relatively small amounts has a big impact on the final dish. No, but you do, almost universally, say "salt to taste." Which is a different way to say the same thing.

freddie_mercury 3y ago

Everyone has to start somewhere. If you take a university student who has just left home and never cooked for themselves and tell them "just pour a glug proportional to the ingredients"...that's pretty close to useless for them, especially since they don't yet an intuition for what things you can freehand (and how much you can freehand them) and which things you shouldn't. After all, you (probably) wouldn't ever say "I just open the Morton's salt and pour a glug in" because getting salt wrong even by relatively small amounts has a big impact on the final dish. That said, I agree with you that recipe writers usually do a poor job of laying which things fall more on the "suggested amount, you can just eye ball it" end of the spectrum and which ones are "you should really pull out at least a spoon to get close on this one".

OJFord 3y ago
> After all, you (probably) wouldn't ever say "I just open the Morton's salt and pour a glug in" because getting salt wrong even by relatively small amounts has a big impact on the final dish. Not GP and I wouldn't phrase it quite like that - but I definitely would. You can give a rough indication, but salt should be added to taste. (Unless we're talking about baking, where for one thing you can't taste until the end anyway. In that case yes of course measure, still to taste, but the feedback loop is longer.)
astura 3y ago
>After all, you (probably) wouldn't ever say "I just open the Morton's salt and pour a glug in" because getting salt wrong even by relatively small amounts has a big impact on the final dish. No, but you do, almost universally, say "salt to taste." Which is a different way to say the same thing.