Why food science doesn’t answer all my questions (PODCAST E54)


For more great Instant Pot recipes, please visit InstantPotEasy.com

Thanks to Manscaped for sponsoring! Get 20% Off and free shipping with the code RAGUSEA at https://manscaped.com Thanks …

48 replies
  1. J.J. Walker
    J.J. Walker says:

    I hadn't bothered yet to check out the etymology but I too had wondered about "research" vs "search". (Mostly because I hadn't been in front of a search engine last time it occurred to me.) Thanks for doing that for me

    Reply
  2. Magmafrost13
    Magmafrost13 says:

    I remember when the question of expanding metal with a hole came up as an extension question in a high school physics exam. The teacher had to go over the answer afterwards because its so unintuitive. Sure wish I also remembered what the answer was.

    Reply
  3. Brian Jacobs
    Brian Jacobs says:

    Enjoyed this, but can't help but wonder why not just try reaching out to Alton Brown and ask him where he got the info that heating a pan closes the pores?

    Reply
  4. Steph O
    Steph O says:

    Question is (and maybe I missed this) did Adam reach out to Alton Brown to find our if he recalls making the statement regatding the pan?

    Reply
  5. Frendo Bendo
    Frendo Bendo says:

    I feel like we stopped seeing videos that had folks who are relevant researchers in whatever field X topic is. So a return to that with young people being sponsored to investigate exactly why X happens could be a cool series for the channel. Also I could have swore this channel was at 600k the last time I look but now its almost at 2.5 million?

    Reply
  6. Thomas Gronek
    Thomas Gronek says:

    Pier reviewed papers SHOULD be torn to shreds by one's piers. However, it as become an affirmation of one's thoughts by one's friends and science is now done by consensus. Thanks again for the presentation.

    Reply
  7. Thomas Gronek
    Thomas Gronek says:

    Thanks for the video. Alton Brown is wrong, as the metal expands, so do the gaps . Heat a steel ring, and measure the inside diameter. it is larger when the metal is hot. Many things are stated as fact, and are not so.

    Reply
  8. Merlin -they-
    Merlin -they- says:

    Adam Conover and Adam Ruins Everything do a good job of citing sources during the show. They put a little box in the corner and have the citation pop up whenever he says something that needs citing and you can get the full list for each episode online.

    Reply
  9. Esther Pettigrew
    Esther Pettigrew says:

    So sad that your attempt to help raise up the caliber of your male audience on the subject of masculinity didn't work as you'd hoped. Thank you so much for trying! Hopefully, someday, with repeated attempts from many different people, we can find an approach that works and thus elevates humanity globally.

    Reply
  10. Tati P
    Tati P says:

    As a nutrition and food science student this sounds like a dream🥲 i always have questions about every day cooking and food topics that just aren’t producing original research

    Reply
  11. Aleksa Sarai
    Aleksa Sarai says:

    37:04 (Side-stepping the discussion of whether it's more correct to apply English grammar rules to loan words or to use the grammar of the original language)

    In Japanese 旨味 (umami) is a noun, and there are two explanations as to its etymology. You could argue it either comes from an extrapolation from the other senses (酸味 (sanmi / sour) 甘味 (amami or kanmi / sweet) 辛味 (karami / spicy) 苦味 (nigami / bitter)) using the i-adjective for delicious food (美味い・旨い / umai) to mean "delicious taste sense". You could also argue it comes from the noun 旨み (umami) which is a noun-ification of the same i-adjective 美味い・旨い (umai) and through a phenomenon known as ateji the み was written as 味.

    Wikipedia (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/うま味) and Ajinomoto (https://www.ajinomoto.co.jp/umami/trivia/trivia6.html) make the first argument, but most dictionaries I checked (大辞林 and 大辞泉) favour the second argument. I suspect that the answer is that it's somewhat of a coincidence that both overlapped and is probably the reason 池田菊苗さん (Makunae Ikeda) chose the name 旨味 for the new flavour he discovered (according to several dictionaries, aside from 酸味/sour, all of the other spices come from ateji of the corresponding i-adjectives 甘い、辛い、苦い — but it's also possible they are originally Chinese words which happen to have pronunciations that match Japanese grammar rules — I'm not sure).

    However, the net result is that the etymology of the word points to the i-adjective 旨い (umai) in both cases, so I would argue it's fair to say "umai" the correct adjectival form (at least in Japanese). Whether you should use the original language's grammar for loan words is a separate question, but to me "umai" sounds better than "umami-i" or "umami-er".

    (As an aside, yes — "umami" just means deliciousness in Japanese — though of course it does now refer to the actual taste sensation).

    Reply
  12. Crowald
    Crowald says:

    I paused a moment at 8:45 and said to myself "Here he goes. This is about to be another etymology thing."

    You're my favorite, Adam. Never change.

    EDIT: "I tried asking them… they didn't say much."

    I utterly LOST it at this joke. It was so lame and I loved it.

    Reply
  13. Porteno1924
    Porteno1924 says:

    Sigh. Ragusea- your work used to be so good. Now I’m getting nothing but stupid innuendo left and right. And really bad jokes. Especially with your sponsored products. It’s getting worse and worse.

    Reply
  14. logiclrd
    logiclrd says:

    The word umami, Japanese うまみ, comes from the Japanese adjective うまい, or umai. So, if you can use the Japanese word umami in English, I don't see why you can't also use the Japanese word umai. "This umami food is very umai."

    Umai simply means "delicious", for what it's worth. 😛

    Reply
  15. Bobby Fisher
    Bobby Fisher says:

    wouldnt the "original research" in your point of view not be a paradox or oxymoron instead of redundant? original research would be a original search wich got redone, wich contradicts the "original" if it is the second time. edit: was too fast, still the question stands. if it would be like you tought, it would be paradox not redundant. redundant is a dead cadaver

    Reply
  16. Stephen Abbott
    Stephen Abbott says:

    Academic science experience or not, Adam does one of the best jobs I've seen from "edutainment" creators at reviewing scientific literature and providing citations.

    Reply
  17. MikeG
    MikeG says:

    When it comes to food science, I find much of it interesting but I’ll be honest. I don’t care about the science why or why not. My perception of taste is the most and only important thing when it comes to what I eat. I don’t care if it’s scientifically better to do something one way, if I’ve tried it and my way tastes better to me, who cares about science.

    Reply
  18. James Cassar
    James Cassar says:

    This channel is such a gem. I might not agree with a lot of Adam's cooking hypothesis but damn, his podcasts and his information videos really are intriguing especially to us chefs

    Reply
  19. Orkestra
    Orkestra says:

    I love your channel and find it incredibly fascinating. I've been a cook for 17 years now, starting with a culinary arts degree and spent the ensuing years travelling, working under skilled Chefs, Bakers, Culinarians. At the same time, collecting books and research on everything from historical localized dishes such as sailors hard tack and pemmican, the history of beer and fermentation, to contemporary molecular gastronomy of the likes of the once renowned El Buli and onwards. I simply love studying anything food related and have so many books from around the world in categories such as historical documentaries, Herbalism, medical journals, college/university texts, food science papers, and traditional cookbooks of course. Some of which are over a 100 years old.
    You know what gets me, the more I learn, the more I realize… that there are so many contradictions over the decades, cultures and countries with so many complex variables that we truly know so little about food as a science and how it interacts with everything from preparation to digestion and all manners associated in between. As much as some individuals like to claim that they know everything about it 😂. My title may be a Chef these days, but I am at heart, a constant student of the culinary arts. There is so much yet to learn and like yourself, once you start questioning enough, you realize a lot of what you find has a rather vague and questionable origin.
    You've started something wonderful in encouraging young people to question more and promote research that may seem trivial now, but I have no doubt that will benefit future culinarians and food scientists alike. Cheers!

    Reply
  20. random832
    random832 says:

    For what it's worth, the 'original' sound is already 100%, so you don't go from 100 to zero. Zero means it's stopped [or possibly infinitely fast, if what you really mean is zero times the length]

    Now, something described as "800% faster" might or might not actually be 900% of the speed [which would be three octaves, one whole tone, and about four cents], but as far as I know it's rare use "800% slower" to mean 1/9 of the speed.

    This is actually a weird point of linguistic ambiguity, because the same speed that you meant by "slowed down 800%" [meaning, I assume, that the length is increased to 800% of the original], is 12.5% of the original speed, which could also be described as "slowed down 87.5%". It's pretty unambiguous that speeding it back up to the original speed would be an increase to 800% of the slowed-down speed [though that is perhaps only 700% faster], since it's 800% of the original sample rate, but how people describe reductions in terms of percentages is inherently ambiguous and context-dependent.

    Going back to the primary source, you said "I had to stretch it out to 8 times its original duration", so if that is an exact statement, that is indeed exactly three octaves.

    You mention later in the video that the sample rate of the original recording was 500 kHz. Stretching it out to exactly 8 times the original duration results in a sample rate of 62500 Hz, which is unusual for a typical computer audio pipeline. Maybe you also resampled it, but if you were to have stretched it to 44100 Hz instead, that would be 11.34 times the original duration, or almost exactly three and a half octaves and four cents.

    Reply
  21. Mike Cecconi
    Mike Cecconi says:

    Love your stuff generally but, man, the "live audience episode" of the podcast is always hard to get through, any podcast, because the audience "interactions" break up the flow we've gotten used to and appreciate. It's your alma mater, I get it, but please don't start doing the MBMBAM thing where every third pod is a "live show" where the audience ruins everything, just because it gets them paid twice.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *