Miscellaneous desk
< November 13	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 14

Food science, gustation, and density

I'm hoping someone will know the answer to this question. I've been obsessing of late over the relationship between the size and density of food and its perceived taste, flavor and overall eatability (not edibility). For some time I've been convinced that there is something real here, but having little knowledge of food science, I don't know if this is just a mad delusion or a hunch. Let me give you three simple examples: pancakes, pizza, and cake. For each example, it seems true to me that the smallest version will have the highest level of positive taste and flavor, whereas this profile slope declines as the size grows. In the example of pancakes, compare something like Japanese-style, souffle pancakes, or even just a simple pancake in that size, with a pancake of a much larger size, say a thin flapjack style. Do the same for pizza and cake. Am I wrong in thinking that the taste and flavor decline as the overall portion size increases? Does an extra-large pizza have a noticeable difference in taste than a small pizza? I argue that it does, but why? Is there something to maintaining the desired flavor in a more compact and dense form for some dishes? Obviously, this wouldn't make sense for something like a soup or a clambake or seafood boil, but does it make sense for smaller, traditional dishes which grew larger over time to serve more people? And wouldn't this explain why in some cultures, pancakes are intended to be small, and in Italy, pizza is between 22-35 cm? In other words, they know that the best flavor profile is only possible in smaller portions? Obvious counterargument is someone like Burak Özdemir who supersizes dishes, but does this counterargument even apply? Viriditas (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The density of a food item is an important aspect of how it feels (chewy / crunchy / velvety / ..) when being eaten, which is an important organoleptic property, next to taste, look and temperature. The combination of these properties is what makes its consumption enjoyable or unpleasant. I am fairly convinced that part of this is appreciation of conformance to a learned expectation of how a certain food item "should" look, taste and feel. If you have ordered a crepe, you will be disappointed if it has the thickness of a pancake, and if you wanted pancakes, you will not appreciate it if they appear on the table as thin as crepes. I can see two ways in which size plays a role: in how it looks and in whether the food is consumed in a single "bite" (e.g. sushi) or has to be eaten in pieces. People accustomed to nouvelle cuisine presentations may be unable, when being served a largish portion of some homogeneous goop, to imagine that it might be delectable. If a small-pizza-sized cut-out of a large pizza does not taste the same as an equally large cut-out of an extra-large pizza, the difference surely stems from a difference arising in the process of preparation. BTW, for the smallest version of pancakes, try Dutch poffertjes. --Lambiam 23:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just knew that microgreens are a thing and apparently they are tastier than their fully grown siblings. Your question seems to be about more manufactured products, though. --Error (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lambiam addressed most (but not all) of my question. My reading of Lambiam's reply is that the psychological component of gustation (and whatever else that entails) has a large role to play. That answer is perfectly fine, but what I was really getting at was the physics and engineering of gustation, such that the components of a particular dish, owe their flavor profile and success to their small size. I realize this sounds absurd, so please entertain my possible delusion for just a moment. I used the example of the small size of authentic Italian pizza as an example to discuss. To illustrate: if a world expert on food could point to the best pizza in Italy from a pizzeria, trattoria, or ristorante as the leading exemplar of the dish, do you think it could be scaled up successfully to much larger variations? In other words, does a smaller pizza taste better than a larger pizza? I argue that it does, because as the dish scales up in size, it becomes more difficult to replicate the same flavor profile, among other things (cooking time variation, consistency of ingredient portions). There's also the simplicity and predictive success of controlling a dish at a smaller size. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The size aspect might be regarded as a component of Mouthfeel. You might also find Amuse-bouche of interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.161.192 (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]