5 ms·

And metric containers and recipes. In metric countries, a small kitchen scale is very common. The US seems to run on volume, rather than weight.

by Animats 10mo ago

Swizec 10mo ago
> The US seems to run on volume, rather than weight. Baking is based on proportions. As long as you use the same measuring tool, the details don’t matter. 2 cups of flour works regardless of the size of your cup
- eutropia 10mo ago
  Yes but the packing density of flour varies cup to cup, within the same measuring cup, resulting in different amounts of flour. > J. Kenji Lopez-Alt, the managing editor of the blog Serious Eats, once asked 10 people to measure a cup of all-purpose flour into a bowl. When the cooks were done, Mr. Lopez-Alt weighed each bowl. “Depending on how strong you are or your scooping method, I found that a 'cup of flour’ could be anywhere from 4 to 6 ounces,” he said. That’s a significant difference: one cook might be making a cake with one-and-a-half times as much flour as another. So you have to carefully scoop precisely the same way every time to even be close to accurate??
  - s5300 10mo ago
    [dead]
  - t-3 10mo ago
    You'll know if you need to add more flour when it comes time to knead. There's no such thing as accuracy in cooking, and especially not baking.
    - D-Machine 10mo ago
      Baking--along with fermentation, curing, and certain brines or other solutions--is the subset of cooking where accuracy of the masses of ingredients matters more than most others. And yet still you are right you must often adjust significantly in baking for other factors (temperature + yeast activity, humidity, flour grind and composition, and general feel on kneading).
  - Swizec 10mo ago
    > So you have to carefully scoop precisely the same way every time to even be close to accurate?? Technically you’re supposed to sift your flour before measuring. This removes clumps and also helps you get consistent packing. I think in ye olden days it also got rid of any leftover wheat husks that made it through. My point wasn’t that you get the same amount of flour every time. You get the same ratio of ingredients today. Ime people way overthink home baking. If you’re not trying to make 500 perfectly identical units, you really don’t have to sweat the measurements so much. Make the dough or batter then adjust until it feels right. Having good pictures (or experience) for different stages of a recipe is way more important than detailed measurements.
    - D-Machine 10mo ago
      Sifting, IMO from experience, does not solve the mass-to-volume ratio problem enough compared to just going by mass. As a quick sanity test, if it did, serious baking resources would just always specify to use sifted flour (as this is easier and requires less equipment than a scale), but since they don't (e.g. Modernist Bread/Pizza, if you really demand a citation), you can infer that sifting is not effective in making reproducible results. Also, note e.g. chemistry is not done using sifted volumes (peruse quickly the amount of articles trying to assess the bulk vs "tapped density" of various powders: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22tapped%20density%22 https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22ta...). This should cause some skepticism about claims that sifting your flour is going to make baking results particularly consistent. Sifting definitely helps remove variance (especially if you always buy the same flour and use the same sifting method into the same bowl, and then put un-needed sifted powder back into the jar), but IMO is far inferior to just weighing. You're still right everyone overthinks home baking. Precision only matters if you are aiming for perfection, and even a horribly misspecified recipe made at home, but consumed fresh, is still generally going to be good, and definitely better than anything you buy at a supermarket. (And this is precisely why using a slide rule for precision is massively missing the point). As you said, there are many indicators that are more important to pay attention to.
    - throw0101c 10mo ago
      > My point wasn’t that you get the same amount of flour every time. You get the same ratio of ingredients today. And hope that if you share your recipe, or get one from someone else, that everyone is using the same tool.
- Someone1234 10mo ago
  No, in the imperial system they're based on proportions. In the metric system they're based on multiplying or dividing actual weights.
  - rngfnby 10mo ago
    Please use "volumetric" units and "mass" units. Your argument is otherwise hard to follow since presumably Europeans scale recipes too. Anyway, it's not really an issue.
    - strken 10mo ago
      I think the argument is that commercial recipes in the US are written in proportional notation, e.g. 1:2:3 sourdough, but recipes in countries which use metric give units, e.g. 1kg:2L:3kg. I also note that if you add small proportions of an ingredient, e.g. salt, it might be easier to change units in metric (5g salt) while it would be easier to write proportionally in imperial (0.005 parts salt) if you were then going to scale to to a tonne/ton of dough. I have no idea if this is true but it sounds like a coherent argument that isn't just volumetric vs mass units.
- ghshephard 10mo ago
  One of the major problems with this theory is that "cup" doesn't have any standard definition - and measuring scoops marked as "1 cup" - can be anywhere (ignoring outliers) from 240, 236.6 or 227 ml. So - ignoring the fact that when you scoop flour - the same scooped "cup" can vary by as much as 10-15%, the cup itself may be off by 6%. And you are never quite sure which cup the original recipe maker was using. This is why any half-ways sane baker works off a scale.
  - t-3 10mo ago
    And? Recipes might end up needing 1/3 more total flour just depending on the season, why should I care about how accurate it is to some kitchen separated by geography, time, and ingredients? If it doesn't taste right/feel right/look right, you'll know, and then you fix it.
- D-Machine 10mo ago
  > 2 cups of flour works regardless of the size of your cup This couldn't be more wrong and no serious baking is done by volume for dry ingredients (flour, yeast, sugar, salt preferments, other additives). EDIT: It is clear from your other comments you almost certainly know what you are doing, but this particular part is very wrong. You can't measure powders reliably by volume, regardless of sifting, tapping, or tamping.
bigstrat2003 10mo ago
Weight is a lot harder to use than volume. If I'm measuring a cup of flour (for example), I dip my measuring cup in, level it off, and I'm done. Takes a few seconds. If I use a scale, I have to watch the scale carefully until I'm getting close, then slow down my rate of pouring into the bowl greatly so that I don't go over. Sometimes I will still go over despite my best efforts, and then I have to take flour out to get the measurement right*. It's a huge faff, and it doesn't even produce a better result the vast majority of the time. Some recipes are finicky and do better with a scale, but 90% of the time volume measurements are much faster for the same result. * and to head off the obvious "just don't worry about it if you go a few grams over" rebuttal: that defeats the purpose of using a scale for precision! So either you don't worry about the wiggle room in measurements (at which point just use volume, it's faster), or you strive for precision and it takes you much more work. Either way it's a worse solution unless you really, truly need maximum accuracy.
- D-Machine 10mo ago
  The imprecision of volumetric measurements can absolutely ruin much baking, and many other recipes based on things like surface areas, or where the perception of flavours does not scale linearly with things like either volume or mass of the ingredient. You're right volumes seem easier, at first blush, but the cost of this easiness is a dramatic / considerable reduction in consistency, compared to when measuring by mass. Once you switch to regularly scaling by mass (just as a guideline, and still adjusting to taste, texture, and other factors), you'll realize the apparent easiness of volumes is pure illusion, and actually makes getting good results much harder.
- throw0101c 10mo ago
  > Weight is a lot harder to use than volume. If I'm measuring a cup of flour (for example), I dip my measuring cup in, level it off, and I'm done. You can have huge variance variance with flour or sugar depending on how hard it is packed and even humidity: > I weighed each cup on its own, tared the scale, then scooped it into a bucket of granular sugar and bulldozed the top with the flat side of a butter knife (I figured that there's less divergence in sugar-measurement technique, and it's composed of fine granules that settle fairly evenly). > The results ranged from 6.81 ounces (193 grams) to 8.08 ounces (230 grams). * https://food52.com/story/16497-the-truth-about-your-measuring-cup-dun-dun-dun https://food52.com/story/16497-the-truth-about-your-measurin... And you have to trust your measuring cups (>5% off) and spoons (>20% off): * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5Q21DWg0Fk&t=54s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5Q21DWg0Fk&t=54s * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEXLt4gz7lY&t=59s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEXLt4gz7lY&t=59s * https://www.kingarthurbaking.com/blog/2014/11/03/your-measuring-cups https://www.kingarthurbaking.com/blog/2014/11/03/your-measur... Have you ever verified that your cups/spoons are actually accurate? > Takes a few seconds. If I use a scale, I have to watch the scale carefully until I'm getting close, then slow down my rate of pouring into the bowl greatly so that I don't go over. Yes, that's the point, especially in baking: to get an accurate quantity. (Though in cooking it's less important, relatively speaking.)

And metric containers and recipes. In metric countries, a small kitchen scale is very common. The US seems to run on volume, rather than weight.

by Animats 10mo ago

And metric containers and recipes. In metric countries, a small kitchen scale is very common. The US seems to run on volume, rather than weight.

Swizec 10mo ago

> The US seems to run on volume, rather than weight. Baking is based on proportions. As long as you use the same measuring tool, the details don’t matter. 2 cups of flour works regardless of the size of your cup

eutropia 10mo ago
Yes but the packing density of flour varies cup to cup, within the same measuring cup, resulting in different amounts of flour. > J. Kenji Lopez-Alt, the managing editor of the blog Serious Eats, once asked 10 people to measure a cup of all-purpose flour into a bowl. When the cooks were done, Mr. Lopez-Alt weighed each bowl. “Depending on how strong you are or your scooping method, I found that a 'cup of flour’ could be anywhere from 4 to 6 ounces,” he said. That’s a significant difference: one cook might be making a cake with one-and-a-half times as much flour as another. So you have to carefully scoop precisely the same way every time to even be close to accurate??
- s5300 10mo ago
  [dead]
- t-3 10mo ago
  You'll know if you need to add more flour when it comes time to knead. There's no such thing as accuracy in cooking, and especially not baking.
  - D-Machine 10mo ago
    Baking--along with fermentation, curing, and certain brines or other solutions--is the subset of cooking where accuracy of the masses of ingredients matters more than most others. And yet still you are right you must often adjust significantly in baking for other factors (temperature + yeast activity, humidity, flour grind and composition, and general feel on kneading).
- Swizec 10mo ago
  > So you have to carefully scoop precisely the same way every time to even be close to accurate?? Technically you’re supposed to sift your flour before measuring. This removes clumps and also helps you get consistent packing. I think in ye olden days it also got rid of any leftover wheat husks that made it through. My point wasn’t that you get the same amount of flour every time. You get the same ratio of ingredients today. Ime people way overthink home baking. If you’re not trying to make 500 perfectly identical units, you really don’t have to sweat the measurements so much. Make the dough or batter then adjust until it feels right. Having good pictures (or experience) for different stages of a recipe is way more important than detailed measurements.
  - D-Machine 10mo ago
    Sifting, IMO from experience, does not solve the mass-to-volume ratio problem enough compared to just going by mass. As a quick sanity test, if it did, serious baking resources would just always specify to use sifted flour (as this is easier and requires less equipment than a scale), but since they don't (e.g. Modernist Bread/Pizza, if you really demand a citation), you can infer that sifting is not effective in making reproducible results. Also, note e.g. chemistry is not done using sifted volumes (peruse quickly the amount of articles trying to assess the bulk vs "tapped density" of various powders: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22tapped%20density%22 https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22ta...). This should cause some skepticism about claims that sifting your flour is going to make baking results particularly consistent. Sifting definitely helps remove variance (especially if you always buy the same flour and use the same sifting method into the same bowl, and then put un-needed sifted powder back into the jar), but IMO is far inferior to just weighing. You're still right everyone overthinks home baking. Precision only matters if you are aiming for perfection, and even a horribly misspecified recipe made at home, but consumed fresh, is still generally going to be good, and definitely better than anything you buy at a supermarket. (And this is precisely why using a slide rule for precision is massively missing the point). As you said, there are many indicators that are more important to pay attention to.
  - throw0101c 10mo ago
    > My point wasn’t that you get the same amount of flour every time. You get the same ratio of ingredients today. And hope that if you share your recipe, or get one from someone else, that everyone is using the same tool.
Someone1234 10mo ago
No, in the imperial system they're based on proportions. In the metric system they're based on multiplying or dividing actual weights.
- rngfnby 10mo ago
  Please use "volumetric" units and "mass" units. Your argument is otherwise hard to follow since presumably Europeans scale recipes too. Anyway, it's not really an issue.
  - strken 10mo ago
    I think the argument is that commercial recipes in the US are written in proportional notation, e.g. 1:2:3 sourdough, but recipes in countries which use metric give units, e.g. 1kg:2L:3kg. I also note that if you add small proportions of an ingredient, e.g. salt, it might be easier to change units in metric (5g salt) while it would be easier to write proportionally in imperial (0.005 parts salt) if you were then going to scale to to a tonne/ton of dough. I have no idea if this is true but it sounds like a coherent argument that isn't just volumetric vs mass units.
ghshephard 10mo ago
One of the major problems with this theory is that "cup" doesn't have any standard definition - and measuring scoops marked as "1 cup" - can be anywhere (ignoring outliers) from 240, 236.6 or 227 ml. So - ignoring the fact that when you scoop flour - the same scooped "cup" can vary by as much as 10-15%, the cup itself may be off by 6%. And you are never quite sure which cup the original recipe maker was using. This is why any half-ways sane baker works off a scale.
- t-3 10mo ago
  And? Recipes might end up needing 1/3 more total flour just depending on the season, why should I care about how accurate it is to some kitchen separated by geography, time, and ingredients? If it doesn't taste right/feel right/look right, you'll know, and then you fix it.
D-Machine 10mo ago
> 2 cups of flour works regardless of the size of your cup This couldn't be more wrong and no serious baking is done by volume for dry ingredients (flour, yeast, sugar, salt preferments, other additives). EDIT: It is clear from your other comments you almost certainly know what you are doing, but this particular part is very wrong. You can't measure powders reliably by volume, regardless of sifting, tapping, or tamping.

bigstrat2003 10mo ago

Weight is a lot harder to use than volume. If I'm measuring a cup of flour (for example), I dip my measuring cup in, level it off, and I'm done. Takes a few seconds. If I use a scale, I have to watch the scale carefully until I'm getting close, then slow down my rate of pouring into the bowl greatly so that I don't go over. Sometimes I will still go over despite my best efforts, and then I have to take flour out to get the measurement right*. It's a huge faff, and it doesn't even produce a better result the vast majority of the time. Some recipes are finicky and do better with a scale, but 90% of the time volume measurements are much faster for the same result. * and to head off the obvious "just don't worry about it if you go a few grams over" rebuttal: that defeats the purpose of using a scale for precision! So either you don't worry about the wiggle room in measurements (at which point just use volume, it's faster), or you strive for precision and it takes you much more work. Either way it's a worse solution unless you really, truly need maximum accuracy.

D-Machine 10mo ago
The imprecision of volumetric measurements can absolutely ruin much baking, and many other recipes based on things like surface areas, or where the perception of flavours does not scale linearly with things like either volume or mass of the ingredient. You're right volumes seem easier, at first blush, but the cost of this easiness is a dramatic / considerable reduction in consistency, compared to when measuring by mass. Once you switch to regularly scaling by mass (just as a guideline, and still adjusting to taste, texture, and other factors), you'll realize the apparent easiness of volumes is pure illusion, and actually makes getting good results much harder.
throw0101c 10mo ago
> Weight is a lot harder to use than volume. If I'm measuring a cup of flour (for example), I dip my measuring cup in, level it off, and I'm done. You can have huge variance variance with flour or sugar depending on how hard it is packed and even humidity: > I weighed each cup on its own, tared the scale, then scooped it into a bucket of granular sugar and bulldozed the top with the flat side of a butter knife (I figured that there's less divergence in sugar-measurement technique, and it's composed of fine granules that settle fairly evenly). > The results ranged from 6.81 ounces (193 grams) to 8.08 ounces (230 grams). * https://food52.com/story/16497-the-truth-about-your-measuring-cup-dun-dun-dun https://food52.com/story/16497-the-truth-about-your-measurin... And you have to trust your measuring cups (>5% off) and spoons (>20% off): * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5Q21DWg0Fk&t=54s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5Q21DWg0Fk&t=54s * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEXLt4gz7lY&t=59s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEXLt4gz7lY&t=59s * https://www.kingarthurbaking.com/blog/2014/11/03/your-measuring-cups https://www.kingarthurbaking.com/blog/2014/11/03/your-measur... Have you ever verified that your cups/spoons are actually accurate? > Takes a few seconds. If I use a scale, I have to watch the scale carefully until I'm getting close, then slow down my rate of pouring into the bowl greatly so that I don't go over. Yes, that's the point, especially in baking: to get an accurate quantity. (Though in cooking it's less important, relatively speaking.)