Anonymous
08/14/2024 18:16
Subject: Why do Americans use volumes instead of mass for baking/cooking?
Anonymous wrote:Most people here don’t have a food scale, that’s why.
Then go buy one for $15.
Anonymous
08/14/2024 17:57
Subject: Why do Americans use volumes instead of mass for baking/cooking?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All recipe creators (including American ones) use weighed out ingredients when developing recipes bc it's so much more precise. For the US market they then convert back to volume based measurements.
Weighing and baking is a way better system and even Americans are speaking out in favor of it, eg. Alison Roman on one of her videos.
But it doesn’t make sense to convert back to volumes. Just leave it as mass. Yes, it is way more precise. It makes zero sense to ever use volumes to measure out solids. I worked as a chemist for years.
NP. It does if you're writing for an audience that doesn't have scales. Your experience as a chemist is totally beside the point. Most Americans don't have kitchen scales, and volume measurements are fine for the vast majority of home cooking projects, even baking. Mass is more precise, but does a cake recipe written in cups work? Of course it does, you can tell because Americans successfully make cakes every day.
They make crappier cakes.
Because when people think of quality home cooking, England springs to mind?
Clearly you’ve never been to England. English pastries and baking are exponentially better, on average, than what you typically find in the U.S.
Pastries in London are great, just like pastries in Paris or New York or any other cosmopolitan city. What does have to do with home cooks using a scale? I love British Indian food, but regular English food was just bland.
Not true! I was in Salisbury and all the food was amazing. I disagree with the op though.
Anonymous
08/14/2024 17:46
Subject: Why do Americans use volumes instead of mass for baking/cooking?
I use mass because it’s easier, not because I’m worried about being super precise. It’s easier to measure dry ingredients straight into a bowl, and it’s much easier to double/halve/whatever in grams.
Flour is the only thing where I think it could really matter, because flour really does compact so much and so easily.
Flour is the only thing where I think it could really matter, because flour really does compact so much and so easily.
Anonymous
08/14/2024 17:45
Subject: Re:Why do Americans use volumes instead of mass for baking/cooking?
Well, what about eggs?
The high end of the size range of a large egg as defined by the USDA is 12.5% more than the low end. Plus eggs can lose moisture.
So if you flour tolerance is, idk, 1 gram +/- that darn egg is going to throw off the entire cooking enterprise if you ask me.
The high end of the size range of a large egg as defined by the USDA is 12.5% more than the low end. Plus eggs can lose moisture.
So if you flour tolerance is, idk, 1 gram +/- that darn egg is going to throw off the entire cooking enterprise if you ask me.
Anonymous
08/14/2024 17:40
Subject: Re:Why do Americans use volumes instead of mass for baking/cooking?
In 18th century England, and long before, they use poundstones to weigh butter.
They were actually fossilized sea urchins, rather pretty because of the patterns, and uniform enough that people were happy.
(They also played a significant role in figuring out geological layers).
They were actually fossilized sea urchins, rather pretty because of the patterns, and uniform enough that people were happy.
(They also played a significant role in figuring out geological layers).
Anonymous
08/14/2024 17:33
Subject: Re:Why do Americans use volumes instead of mass for baking/cooking?
Let's suppose I am doing fine baking (for most other things it DOES NOT MATTER). Say I use a scale (hey, in a lot of cases I don't bother with a measuring cup either). Ok, the flour or sugar or whatever is going to have a different percentage of actual, you know, flour (or sugar) depending on humidity, no? So it the exactness is that big a deal how is this an advantage? I should probably check the elevation as well, because, you know. And the barometric pressure. And calibrate the oven temp. Probably keep a temp probe in the ingredients as well. Like what a chemist does. And if a souffle maybe I should have a seismometer, or have someone posted along the train tracks a few blocks from me to stop the engines.
Generally speaking, 2 c of sugar is a pound. 2 c of water or milk is a pound. 2 c of butter is a pound.
Am I going to weigh 1/2 tsp salt? Hell no.
I have a very small kitchen so every utensil has to be assigned a location and be justified. (I used to have a small spring scale for postage. Got damaged or lost somehow, I forget. I was fond of it and have never been able to convince myself to buy a digital so I use the 5 sheets of paper for an ounce rule or weigh at the PO, which is close by anyway.
Generally speaking, 2 c of sugar is a pound. 2 c of water or milk is a pound. 2 c of butter is a pound.
Am I going to weigh 1/2 tsp salt? Hell no.
I have a very small kitchen so every utensil has to be assigned a location and be justified. (I used to have a small spring scale for postage. Got damaged or lost somehow, I forget. I was fond of it and have never been able to convince myself to buy a digital so I use the 5 sheets of paper for an ounce rule or weigh at the PO, which is close by anyway.
Anonymous
08/14/2024 17:08
Subject: Re:Why do Americans use volumes instead of mass for baking/cooking?
The few things that I bake are old family recipes. The kind that someone already tried to convert from “pinches” of this, “dabs” of that, and “season to taste” — to the closest standard measurements that they could come up with. The kind that get altered a bit if the flour and butter that I’m using is not quite the same as the flour or butter that my great grandmother used a hundred years ago. I don’t own a scale, but if I did, there would be no advantages that would come with using it.
Anonymous
08/14/2024 12:26
Subject: Why do Americans use volumes instead of mass for baking/cooking?
Most people here don’t have a food scale, that’s why.
Anonymous
08/14/2024 12:19
Subject: Why do Americans use volumes instead of mass for baking/cooking?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Back to the UK and your hybrid systems of weights and measures. You guys need to pick one or the other and until then quit complaining about the choices others make.
Yeah why do you say "stone" for losing or gaining weight? That's pretty stupid in my opinion!
It's important to have a quick and reliable estimate of how much post apocalyptic weaponry you need to take out a zombie.
Well I like this answer. Does that factor in that the brain needs to be scrambled or just how much "stone" you need to hit them with to knock them over?
Anonymous
08/14/2024 10:55
Subject: Why do Americans use volumes instead of mass for baking/cooking?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You might get a more insightful response if you weren’t so hostile about it. I’m sure there is a historical reason for this if you really want to know.
Here you go. Despite the hostile OP I will share this because I love it so much:
https://imgur.com/gallery/imperial-system-S9nYOfZ
What a dumb post setup with a whole bunch of strawmen.
Omg, a 3rd of a cup is 68.3333 grams!!! Dumb. Because anyone making a recipe using mass wouldn't use 68.333 grams in the first place, the recipe would be invented to optimize ratios and would use 65 grams, 68 grams, or 70 grams. Working with base 10 is infinitely easier. The poster is fixated in decimals. Lol, if that matters to you, you wouldn't use grams of you're concerned about .035 grams, you'd just use milligrams instead. Or if you have decimals of liters, you'd use milliliters. It's really not that hard as that poster makes you want to believe. They're just trying to setup ridiculously stupid scenarios to support a weak argument when they completely ignore simply using a different metric unit of base 10.
Oh you, need 6.036 grams of flour? Not hard, weigh 6 grams and 36 milligrams of flour. Lol. Takes 10 seconds to do.
So many stupid Americans ignorant of science and basic measurements.
36mg out of 6.036g represents an error of 0.05%. There is no recipe in the world that sensitive. Measuring beyond three significant figures is usually meaningless in the physical word.
That's why it doesn't matter.
You're proving the point of why mass is better.
Yes, it does matter whatsoever if you're off by .001 mg. A PP was trying to use a stupid internet post to support the concept that volumes for solids make sense because of an asinine argument that imperial units are divisible by 12. The post went on to argue that decimals are bad when using mass, because what if you end up needing to measure something like 68.333.... grams!!???
It really wouldn't matter if you could only measure out thousandth digit when using mass. The reason mass is far superior is because it automatically accounts for density. As a other poster mentioned, different brands of food stuffs can have wide variances in their products in consistency. 1 cup of flour from brand X may be 150g while 1 cup of flour from brand Y may be as divergent as 170 grams. This matters tremendously to cooking, because you're adding in hugely variable amounts of total gluten. If you simply used mass you'd be getting the correct amount of flour across all brands. Different brands may differ simply because physical properties are different in their food stuffs due to the way try manufacturer a product. Product X may simply be 'fluffier' than product Y's. X will give you less of the ingredient per volume because it simply has more empty space per volume than Y. Use mass.
You are making the wrong argument. I agree that different flours can have different densities. It's like that they would absorb different amounts of water as well. So, it really doesn't matter how precisely you measure things, by weight or volume. Note, I can't use the word mass in good faith if you are using a scale. That's the reason measurements don't really need to be very precise, because the raw ingredients vary considerably anyway.
Anonymous
08/14/2024 09:20
Subject: Why do Americans use volumes instead of mass for baking/cooking?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You might get a more insightful response if you weren’t so hostile about it. I’m sure there is a historical reason for this if you really want to know.
Here you go. Despite the hostile OP I will share this because I love it so much:
https://imgur.com/gallery/imperial-system-S9nYOfZ
What a dumb post setup with a whole bunch of strawmen.
Omg, a 3rd of a cup is 68.3333 grams!!! Dumb. Because anyone making a recipe using mass wouldn't use 68.333 grams in the first place, the recipe would be invented to optimize ratios and would use 65 grams, 68 grams, or 70 grams. Working with base 10 is infinitely easier. The poster is fixated in decimals. Lol, if that matters to you, you wouldn't use grams of you're concerned about .035 grams, you'd just use milligrams instead. Or if you have decimals of liters, you'd use milliliters. It's really not that hard as that poster makes you want to believe. They're just trying to setup ridiculously stupid scenarios to support a weak argument when they completely ignore simply using a different metric unit of base 10.
Oh you, need 6.036 grams of flour? Not hard, weigh 6 grams and 36 milligrams of flour. Lol. Takes 10 seconds to do.
So many stupid Americans ignorant of science and basic measurements.
36mg out of 6.036g represents an error of 0.05%. There is no recipe in the world that sensitive. Measuring beyond three significant figures is usually meaningless in the physical word.
That's why it doesn't matter.
You're proving the point of why mass is better.
Yes, it does matter whatsoever if you're off by .001 mg. A PP was trying to use a stupid internet post to support the concept that volumes for solids make sense because of an asinine argument that imperial units are divisible by 12. The post went on to argue that decimals are bad when using mass, because what if you end up needing to measure something like 68.333.... grams!!???
It really wouldn't matter if you could only measure out thousandth digit when using mass. The reason mass is far superior is because it automatically accounts for density. As a other poster mentioned, different brands of food stuffs can have wide variances in their products in consistency. 1 cup of flour from brand X may be 150g while 1 cup of flour from brand Y may be as divergent as 170 grams. This matters tremendously to cooking, because you're adding in hugely variable amounts of total gluten. If you simply used mass you'd be getting the correct amount of flour across all brands. Different brands may differ simply because physical properties are different in their food stuffs due to the way try manufacturer a product. Product X may simply be 'fluffier' than product Y's. X will give you less of the ingredient per volume because it simply has more empty space per volume than Y. Use mass.
^ typo - meant to say 'yes, it doesn't matter..'
Anonymous
08/14/2024 09:19
Subject: Why do Americans use volumes instead of mass for baking/cooking?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You might get a more insightful response if you weren’t so hostile about it. I’m sure there is a historical reason for this if you really want to know.
Here you go. Despite the hostile OP I will share this because I love it so much:
https://imgur.com/gallery/imperial-system-S9nYOfZ
What a dumb post setup with a whole bunch of strawmen.
Omg, a 3rd of a cup is 68.3333 grams!!! Dumb. Because anyone making a recipe using mass wouldn't use 68.333 grams in the first place, the recipe would be invented to optimize ratios and would use 65 grams, 68 grams, or 70 grams. Working with base 10 is infinitely easier. The poster is fixated in decimals. Lol, if that matters to you, you wouldn't use grams of you're concerned about .035 grams, you'd just use milligrams instead. Or if you have decimals of liters, you'd use milliliters. It's really not that hard as that poster makes you want to believe. They're just trying to setup ridiculously stupid scenarios to support a weak argument when they completely ignore simply using a different metric unit of base 10.
Oh you, need 6.036 grams of flour? Not hard, weigh 6 grams and 36 milligrams of flour. Lol. Takes 10 seconds to do.
So many stupid Americans ignorant of science and basic measurements.
36mg out of 6.036g represents an error of 0.05%. There is no recipe in the world that sensitive. Measuring beyond three significant figures is usually meaningless in the physical word.
That's why it doesn't matter.
You're proving the point of why mass is better.
Yes, it does matter whatsoever if you're off by .001 mg. A PP was trying to use a stupid internet post to support the concept that volumes for solids make sense because of an asinine argument that imperial units are divisible by 12. The post went on to argue that decimals are bad when using mass, because what if you end up needing to measure something like 68.333.... grams!!???
It really wouldn't matter if you could only measure out thousandth digit when using mass. The reason mass is far superior is because it automatically accounts for density. As a other poster mentioned, different brands of food stuffs can have wide variances in their products in consistency. 1 cup of flour from brand X may be 150g while 1 cup of flour from brand Y may be as divergent as 170 grams. This matters tremendously to cooking, because you're adding in hugely variable amounts of total gluten. If you simply used mass you'd be getting the correct amount of flour across all brands. Different brands may differ simply because physical properties are different in their food stuffs due to the way try manufacturer a product. Product X may simply be 'fluffier' than product Y's. X will give you less of the ingredient per volume because it simply has more empty space per volume than Y. Use mass.
Anonymous
08/14/2024 09:04
Subject: Re:Why do Americans use volumes instead of mass for baking/cooking?
I think most Americans who bake do use grams or ounces instead of cups. I know I do. But also, when baking bread for instance, there is more to the feel than an exact measurement. It depends on the humidity, altitude, etc. that you're working in. So even if I'm measuring with grams, I still have to adjust.
Anonymous
08/14/2024 08:36
Subject: Why do Americans use volumes instead of mass for baking/cooking?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You might get a more insightful response if you weren’t so hostile about it. I’m sure there is a historical reason for this if you really want to know.
Here you go. Despite the hostile OP I will share this because I love it so much:
https://imgur.com/gallery/imperial-system-S9nYOfZ
What a dumb post setup with a whole bunch of strawmen.
Omg, a 3rd of a cup is 68.3333 grams!!! Dumb. Because anyone making a recipe using mass wouldn't use 68.333 grams in the first place, the recipe would be invented to optimize ratios and would use 65 grams, 68 grams, or 70 grams. Working with base 10 is infinitely easier. The poster is fixated in decimals. Lol, if that matters to you, you wouldn't use grams of you're concerned about .035 grams, you'd just use milligrams instead. Or if you have decimals of liters, you'd use milliliters. It's really not that hard as that poster makes you want to believe. They're just trying to setup ridiculously stupid scenarios to support a weak argument when they completely ignore simply using a different metric unit of base 10.
Oh you, need 6.036 grams of flour? Not hard, weigh 6 grams and 36 milligrams of flour. Lol. Takes 10 seconds to do.
So many stupid Americans ignorant of science and basic measurements.
36mg out of 6.036g represents an error of 0.05%. There is no recipe in the world that sensitive. Measuring beyond three significant figures is usually meaningless in the physical word.
That's why it doesn't matter.
Anonymous
08/14/2024 08:34
Subject: Why do Americans use volumes instead of mass for baking/cooking?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You might get a more insightful response if you weren’t so hostile about it. I’m sure there is a historical reason for this if you really want to know.
Here you go. Despite the hostile OP I will share this because I love it so much:
https://imgur.com/gallery/imperial-system-S9nYOfZ
What a dumb post setup with a whole bunch of strawmen.
Omg, a 3rd of a cup is 68.3333 grams!!! Dumb. Because anyone making a recipe using mass wouldn't use 68.333 grams in the first place, the recipe would be invented to optimize ratios and would use 65 grams, 68 grams, or 70 grams. Working with base 10 is infinitely easier. The poster is fixated in decimals. Lol, if that matters to you, you wouldn't use grams of you're concerned about .035 grams, you'd just use milligrams instead. Or if you have decimals of liters, you'd use milliliters. It's really not that hard as that poster makes you want to believe. They're just trying to setup ridiculously stupid scenarios to support a weak argument when they completely ignore simply using a different metric unit of base 10.
Oh you, need 6.036 grams of flour? Not hard, weigh 6 grams and 36 milligrams of flour. Lol. Takes 10 seconds to do.
So many stupid Americans ignorant of science and basic measurements.
If you can't accept the many good explanations given here, then just know it's because the US was founded on the idea of not doing anything the way you do.
What good explanations? There hasn't been any.
This from a country that measures body weight in "stones"? GTFO.
Why are you fixated on the UK. Virtually the rest of the entire developed world uses mass too in cooking.
Are you really this dense?