4 ms·

> She uses a lot of recipes from the NY Times. They are heavy. There’s a good chocolate chip cookie recipe from the NYT that I’ve used several times. Not only

> She uses a lot of recipes from the NY Times. They are heavy. There’s a good chocolate chip cookie recipe from the NYT that I’ve used several times. Not only is it heavy, I’ve had to halve the ingredients and even then it still produces enough to satiate the Cookie Monster for probably at least a month. As a Brit, I also had to convert all of the measurements (patent absurdities like ‘cups of butter’, ‘tablespoons of chocolate’, etc.) to grams — taking account of the variation in density, of course.

analog31 2y ago
Some of the measurements are aided by how the ingredients are packaged. For instance, butter is sold by the pound, in boxes of 4 "sticks" that are marked as being 1/4 cup each, which ignores the density variation but is familiar to every home cook. Chocolate comes in "squares" that are some predictable amount. In fact some recipes call for squares. "A pint's a pound the world around" is a workable rule of thumb for a lot of things, but of course you need to know when greater precision is needed. Since I don't bake sweets very often, I measure most things by eyeball. For instance my bread recipe is based on filling a glass measuring cup nearly to the top, above where the volume markings end. Maybe it's a reaction to spending my day designing precision measuring equipment. But yeah, it's a hodgepodge of archaic units, and quite unnerving if you hail from the metric world.
- xanderlewis 2y ago
  If it was at least all in cups, it’d be somewhat more forgivable. I’ve even seen recipes using amounts of flour measured in a combination of cups and tablespoons! Actually, maybe that doesn’t sound as mad to everyone as it does to me… Anyway, it makes more sense hearing that sticks of butter are labelled in cups. I didn’t know that! In the UK, butter comes in 250g blocks.
  - analog31 2y ago
    Yeah, especially since the density of flour varies. All the home bakers I know either weigh their flour, or eyeball it like I do and live with the imprecision. I'd just let the flour mound over the top of the cup by a bit to make up for the tablespoons. ;-)
    - ghaff 2y ago
      A scale's cheap and if it's in a situation where accuracy matters, I use it if the measurements are given or consult a standard conversion. And as someone in the US I tend to use grams for the purpose to avoid faffing with a combination of units. And I don't even mind at all using US Imperial for many things on a day-to-day basis,
    - bigstrat2003 2y ago
      Agreed - eyeballing it (or volume measurement for that matter) is good enough for the vast majority of baking recipes. I have made some finicky recipes in my day, but generally you will not need the precision of measuring by weight. For some reason people online hype up how exact you "need" to be when baking, but it's just not true. Hilariously, people also act like you can just completely wing it with no precision at all when cooking on the stove, and that also isn't true. Both forms of cooking benefit from some measurements and consistency, but you don't have to go too crazy with it.
    - UIUC_06 2y ago
      > live with the imprecision Exactly that. In a restaurant, you're really pressured to make it the same each time. At home: Who cares? It's good that it's different every time.
      - bigstrat2003 2y ago
        I hate it when my cooking comes out different every time. Reproducible results are super important even at home, imo.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    Sticks of butter are also labeled in tablespoons here. One stick is 1/2c, and the paper it is wrapped in also has markings for 1-8 tbsp. So it's pretty common to see that in US recipes as well. As far as flour goes, it's incredibly common to have both cups and measuring spoons in a US kitchen. So if a recipe says "1 cup and 2 tablespoons" or something, it's really easy to measure that. By contrast, I hate recipes which use weight measurements. It takes a ton of faffing about to get exactly 300g (or whatever weight) of flour weighed out. Add a bit... watch scale... add a bit more... watch scale ad nauseam. And then I often wind up overshooting anyways, so then I have to try to scoop some back out! Whereas with volume measurements I just dip a cup/spoon in, level it off, and I'm done in a couple of seconds.
    - rightbyte 2y ago
      When doing sensitive receips like some breads you need gram level accuracy to get the right result. The density vary too much.
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      For similar accuracy to what you have with cups and spoons, you don't need to bother making the measurement exactly 300g. A relative was a professional cook. Butter wrappers are also marked with measurements here, at 25g intervals. That would be accepted for some recipes, but the butter would be measured more carefully when making certain pastries or cakes.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  Since you're replying to a Brit, I'll point out the irony that > "A pint's a pound the world around" only applies to the American meaning of "world", i.e. the USA and maybe Canada. "A pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter," when it's an Imperial pint.
- alvarlagerlof 2y ago
  What's a pound though? Not so global.

analog31 2y ago

Some of the measurements are aided by how the ingredients are packaged. For instance, butter is sold by the pound, in boxes of 4 "sticks" that are marked as being 1/4 cup each, which ignores the density variation but is familiar to every home cook. Chocolate comes in "squares" that are some predictable amount. In fact some recipes call for squares. "A pint's a pound the world around" is a workable rule of thumb for a lot of things, but of course you need to know when greater precision is needed. Since I don't bake sweets very often, I measure most things by eyeball. For instance my bread recipe is based on filling a glass measuring cup nearly to the top, above where the volume markings end. Maybe it's a reaction to spending my day designing precision measuring equipment. But yeah, it's a hodgepodge of archaic units, and quite unnerving if you hail from the metric world.

xanderlewis 2y ago
If it was at least all in cups, it’d be somewhat more forgivable. I’ve even seen recipes using amounts of flour measured in a combination of cups and tablespoons! Actually, maybe that doesn’t sound as mad to everyone as it does to me… Anyway, it makes more sense hearing that sticks of butter are labelled in cups. I didn’t know that! In the UK, butter comes in 250g blocks.
- analog31 2y ago
  Yeah, especially since the density of flour varies. All the home bakers I know either weigh their flour, or eyeball it like I do and live with the imprecision. I'd just let the flour mound over the top of the cup by a bit to make up for the tablespoons. ;-)
  - ghaff 2y ago
    A scale's cheap and if it's in a situation where accuracy matters, I use it if the measurements are given or consult a standard conversion. And as someone in the US I tend to use grams for the purpose to avoid faffing with a combination of units. And I don't even mind at all using US Imperial for many things on a day-to-day basis,
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    Agreed - eyeballing it (or volume measurement for that matter) is good enough for the vast majority of baking recipes. I have made some finicky recipes in my day, but generally you will not need the precision of measuring by weight. For some reason people online hype up how exact you "need" to be when baking, but it's just not true. Hilariously, people also act like you can just completely wing it with no precision at all when cooking on the stove, and that also isn't true. Both forms of cooking benefit from some measurements and consistency, but you don't have to go too crazy with it.
  - UIUC_06 2y ago
    > live with the imprecision Exactly that. In a restaurant, you're really pressured to make it the same each time. At home: Who cares? It's good that it's different every time.
    - bigstrat2003 2y ago
      I hate it when my cooking comes out different every time. Reproducible results are super important even at home, imo.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  Sticks of butter are also labeled in tablespoons here. One stick is 1/2c, and the paper it is wrapped in also has markings for 1-8 tbsp. So it's pretty common to see that in US recipes as well. As far as flour goes, it's incredibly common to have both cups and measuring spoons in a US kitchen. So if a recipe says "1 cup and 2 tablespoons" or something, it's really easy to measure that. By contrast, I hate recipes which use weight measurements. It takes a ton of faffing about to get exactly 300g (or whatever weight) of flour weighed out. Add a bit... watch scale... add a bit more... watch scale ad nauseam. And then I often wind up overshooting anyways, so then I have to try to scoop some back out! Whereas with volume measurements I just dip a cup/spoon in, level it off, and I'm done in a couple of seconds.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    When doing sensitive receips like some breads you need gram level accuracy to get the right result. The density vary too much.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    For similar accuracy to what you have with cups and spoons, you don't need to bother making the measurement exactly 300g. A relative was a professional cook. Butter wrappers are also marked with measurements here, at 25g intervals. That would be accepted for some recipes, but the butter would be measured more carefully when making certain pastries or cakes.
Symbiote 2y ago
Since you're replying to a Brit, I'll point out the irony that > "A pint's a pound the world around" only applies to the American meaning of "world", i.e. the USA and maybe Canada. "A pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter," when it's an Imperial pint.
alvarlagerlof 2y ago
What's a pound though? Not so global.