If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast)   Nathan Myhrvold wants to tell you artisan hipsters that everything you thought you knew about bread and bread-making is wrong, and he's written a $600 book to set you right   ( thedailybeast.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, bread, Modernist Bread, Rye, Flour, no-knead bread recipes, good rye bread, better rye bread, simple baking bread  
•       •       •

1354 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Nov 2017 at 8:50 PM (28 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-11-06 04:27:42 PM  
No, I do not need to join you on your journey through the perils of yeast selection, just gimmie your recipe.
 
2017-11-06 05:36:09 PM  
Fark you, Myhrvold, and the patent you rode in on.
 
2017-11-06 06:22:09 PM  
Yes, because there was no such thing as food science before you wrote you book, you tw*t...

Michael Ruhlman did what Mister Manny is looking at, and without the pretension about a decade ago, in Ratio.

Any time some git says, "You can't get" this ingredient or that ingredient, it just means that they're not looking too hard, or they're not ordering their product to their own specifications. And you can certainly do that. From meats, to flour, to salt and more. While he MAY have studied at a cooking school, it is painfully obvious that he's not actually WORKED in kitchens. He is ultimately a dabbler.

You'll forgive me if I take what a dabbler says with a certain degree of reservation. Especially when he recites the oft repeated lie that "cooking is based on tradition without knowing why." That is perhaps the thing that soured me to this, especially given that it is essentially a rip on about half a dozen books in the last ten years. It's NOT a movement. It's NOT anything new. Food science, oddly enough, has been around for a damn long while, and oddly enough, supported and studied by pretty damn much EVERY culinary program in the world. And actually taught to new chefs as they come up.

This is pretentious twaddle to sell books to folks who want to feel that they have a leg up on some grand tradition, that is seated not just in empirical discovery, but actual scientific method as well.
 
2017-11-06 06:41:14 PM  
15 bucks on Amazon
images-na.ssl-images-amazon.comView Full Size
 
2017-11-06 07:36:16 PM  
Bread is ne of those things that is very simple to learn, but you can spend a lifetime mastering it.
 
2017-11-06 08:26:48 PM  

hubiestubert: Yes, because there was no such thing as food science before you wrote you book, you tw*t...

Michael Ruhlman did what Mister Manny is looking at, and without the pretension about a decade ago, in Ratio.

Any time some git says, "You can't get" this ingredient or that ingredient, it just means that they're not looking too hard, or they're not ordering their product to their own specifications. And you can certainly do that. From meats, to flour, to salt and more. While he MAY have studied at a cooking school, it is painfully obvious that he's not actually WORKED in kitchens. He is ultimately a dabbler.

You'll forgive me if I take what a dabbler says with a certain degree of reservation. Especially when he recites the oft repeated lie that "cooking is based on tradition without knowing why." That is perhaps the thing that soured me to this, especially given that it is essentially a rip on about half a dozen books in the last ten years. It's NOT a movement. It's NOT anything new. Food science, oddly enough, has been around for a damn long while, and oddly enough, supported and studied by pretty damn much EVERY culinary program in the world. And actually taught to new chefs as they come up.

This is pretentious twaddle to sell books to folks who want to feel that they have a leg up on some grand tradition, that is seated not just in empirical discovery, but actual scientific method as well.


Hear, hear!

As an aside, I've learned more about food science inside your body in the last 6 years than you shake a steel at. It's pretty fascinating, and has been extremely helpful post-colectomy.
 
2017-11-06 09:08:03 PM  

hubiestubert: Yes, because there was no such thing as food science before you wrote you book, you tw*t...

Michael Ruhlman did what Mister Manny is looking at, and without the pretension about a decade ago, in Ratio.


Sorry, hubie, normally you know what you're talking about on food-related stuff, but Ratio and Modernist Bread are not even in the same category. Ratio took existing recipes and broke them down to easily scalable ratio based formulae. Even its cover alone is a very useful guide (hence my posting it here in readable size):
img.fark.netView Full Size

My copy of it is well stained and dog-eared.

Modernist Bread is 80% science book, exploring why recipes work and what's happening with the chemicals and microbes in the dough. If you wanted to compare it to, say, How to Read a French Fry, you'd have a point. But instead, it seems like your real criticism is the alleged pretension.

Any time some git says, "You can't get" this ingredient or that ingredient, it just means that they're not looking too hard, or they're not ordering their product to their own specifications. And you can certainly do that. From meats, to flour, to salt and more. While he MAY have studied at a cooking school, it is painfully obvious that he's not actually WORKED in kitchens. He is ultimately a dabbler.

You'll forgive me if I take what a dabbler says with a certain degree of reservation. Especially when he recites the oft repeated lie that "cooking is based on tradition without knowing why." That is perhaps the thing that soured me to this, especially given that it is essentially a rip on about half a dozen books in the last ten years. It's NOT a movement. It's NOT anything new. Food science, oddly enough, has been around for a damn long while, and oddly enough, supported and studied by pretty damn much EVERY culinary program in the world. And actually taught to new chefs as they come up.


This just sounds like sour grapes: "food scientists are just dabblers because they haven't actually WORKED in kitchens like me!" You may know how to cook a fine steak, hubie, but Monsieur Maillard wasn't a dabbler.
 
2017-11-06 09:09:35 PM  

EvilEgg: Bread is ne of those things that is very simple to learn, but you can spend a lifetime mastering it.


this.
 
2017-11-06 09:15:23 PM  
I thought subby was joking about the $600 price tag. Someone is used to dealing with text books.
 
2017-11-06 09:29:19 PM  

Theaetetus: hubiestubert:... .

This just sounds like sour grapes: "food scientists are just dabblers because they haven't actually WORKED in kitchens like me!" You may know how to cook a fine steak, hubie, but Monsieur Maillard wasn't a dabbler.


I think the main thesis of "dabbling" has more to do with someone thinking they invented the wheel, while other chefs pass him by on rocket ships.

No, nothing new at all... 
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-06 09:37:40 PM  
I've got no kneejerk reaction unlike the know-it-alls here.

But here are some of the books I have in case you are interested in baking bread:

images-na.ssl-images-amazon.comView Full Size

f8383f377ae0dbf72580-915d22ed3472915dfddff20d58b567d0.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.comView Full Size

kingarthurflour.comView Full Size

ecx.images-amazon.comView Full Size
 
2017-11-06 09:40:59 PM  

eltejon: Theaetetus: hubiestubert:... .

This just sounds like sour grapes: "food scientists are just dabblers because they haven't actually WORKED in kitchens like me!" You may know how to cook a fine steak, hubie, but Monsieur Maillard wasn't a dabbler.

I think the main thesis of "dabbling" has more to do with someone thinking they invented the wheel, while other chefs pass him by on rocket ships.


And I think the main thesis of "sour grapes" is accusing someone of claiming they invented the wheel when they did the opposite. FTA: "Long before they knew how it worked, our ancestors figured out what to do."
 
2017-11-06 09:41:53 PM  

eltejon: Theaetetus: hubiestubert:... .

This just sounds like sour grapes: "food scientists are just dabblers because they haven't actually WORKED in kitchens like me!" You may know how to cook a fine steak, hubie, but Monsieur Maillard wasn't a dabbler.

I think the main thesis of "dabbling" has more to do with someone thinking they invented the wheel, while other chefs pass him by on rocket ships.

No, nothing new at all... [img.fark.net image 183x275]


Pretty much.

I have done corporate, which means that I've seen food scientists in action, and worked with them, shoulder to shoulder, and most of the folks I've worked with AREN'T dabblers. They are professionals, who know the craft and the science, and as chemical engineers they have made my life much easier--and sometimes more of a pain in the ass if we had to test their latest cost cutting project.

The thing that I object to, in this case, is someone who thinks that because they've turned their attention to something, that NO ONE else has EVER thought about such things, nor put those experiments and processes to paper. And a proper professional would realize that he's just retreading processes that are fairly well documented. Hence my dubbing him a dabbler. And competent food scientist realizes how distribution chains work, how chain of supplies work, and how to get the milling of flour that you ask for, without even breaking a sweat. Tooting his own horn for "breaking down" what is actually fairly established, and inserting his own opinion on what the market will and will not bear, and what the public even expects, is part and parcel of the charge of pretension that I fling his way.

Don't like it? Don't eat it. Markets WILL provide if you look and you ask. And if they aren't, then you have yourself an opportunity to fill that gap. But the half handed swipe at the market itself...that is the heart felt sign of a dabbler compared to a professional...
 
2017-11-06 09:45:35 PM  
I'd add this to the list:

images-na.ssl-images-amazon.comView Full Size
 
2017-11-06 09:46:36 PM  

hubiestubert: And a proper professional would realize that he's just retreading processes that are fairly well documented. Hence my dubbing him a dabbler.


As I said above, he explicitly states that he's retreading processes that are fairly well documented, to see why and how they work using modern scientific tests. So, apparently, you should be calling him a "proper professional," right?
No, he's a dabbler, because sour grapes.
 
2017-11-06 09:53:30 PM  

hubiestubert: Food science, oddly enough, has been around for a damn long while, and oddly enough, supported and studied by pretty damn much EVERY culinary program in the world. And actually taught to new chefs as they come up.


I'll also note that the alleged dabbler has a culinary degree from École de Cuisine La Varenne. One of those accredited culinary programs.
 
2017-11-06 10:02:56 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Fark you, Myhrvold, and the patent you rode in on.


Yup, fark Intellectual Ventures
 
2017-11-06 10:03:35 PM  

Theaetetus: hubiestubert: And a proper professional would realize that he's just retreading processes that are fairly well documented. Hence my dubbing him a dabbler.

As I said above, he explicitly states that he's retreading processes that are fairly well documented, to see why and how they work using modern scientific tests. So, apparently, you should be calling him a "proper professional," right?
No, he's a dabbler, because sour grapes.


Considering that he's retreading work by OTHER food scientists and professionals...I stand by my assessment. None of what he's putting out there is particularly new, just new to him. Because he's not read the field, nor worked in the field, to even understand how much he's retreading. By folks who publish in actual industry journals.

He's got nice niche, but it's not in culinary education, and he's just dabbling in the field.
 
2017-11-06 10:07:31 PM  

hubiestubert: Considering that he's retreading work by OTHER food scientists and professionals...I stand by my assessment.


Ratio was literally retreading work by OTHER food scientists and professionals, reframing well-known recipes as ratios. But Rhulman's not a dabbler, because...?

/both of them have two James Beard Awards... how many do you have?
 
2017-11-06 10:09:18 PM  
Although, as an actual dabbler, I appreciate being considered in the same august category as accredited, awarded professionals. ;)
 
2017-11-06 10:23:35 PM  

GodComplex: I thought subby was joking about the $600 price tag. Someone is used to dealing with text books.


I actually found a $600 textbook, new in shrink wrap with "no returns if open" sticker, at Goodwill a few weeks ago. Should sell late December/beginning of January. List was like $1200
 
2017-11-06 10:52:20 PM  

Theaetetus: This just sounds like sour grapes: "food scientists are just dabblers because they haven't actually WORKED in kitchens like me!" You may know how to cook a fine steak, hubie, but Monsieur Maillard wasn't a dabbler.


Any time you have to put "science" after your degree then it isn't really science.  See also social science and political science.

/about half of the food scientists I know are functionally illiterate when it comes to math
//food scientists are dabblers, chemists do the real work
///Maillard was a chemist
 
2017-11-06 10:54:39 PM  
I apparently do NOT have Beard on Bread, I must have hallucinated it. I do have Ratio.
And I have:
images-na.ssl-images-amazon.comView Full Size
 
2017-11-06 10:59:00 PM  

RogermcAllen: Theaetetus: This just sounds like sour grapes: "food scientists are just dabblers because they haven't actually WORKED in kitchens like me!" You may know how to cook a fine steak, hubie, but Monsieur Maillard wasn't a dabbler.

Any time you have to put "science" after your degree then it isn't really science.  See also social science and political science.


What about earth science and computer science?
 
2017-11-06 11:12:55 PM  

Theaetetus: hubiestubert: Yes, because there was no such thing as food science before you wrote you book, you tw*t...

Michael Ruhlman did what Mister Manny is looking at, and without the pretension about a decade ago, in Ratio.

Sorry, hubie, normally you know what you're talking about on food-related stuff, but Ratio and Modernist Bread are not even in the same category. Ratio took existing recipes and broke them down to easily scalable ratio based formulae. Even its cover alone is a very useful guide (hence my posting it here in readable size):
[img.fark.net image 649x1000]
My copy of it is well stained and dog-eared.

Modernist Bread is 80% science book, exploring why recipes work and what's happening with the chemicals and microbes in the dough. If you wanted to compare it to, say, How to Read a French Fry, you'd have a point. But instead, it seems like your real criticism is the alleged pretension.

Any time some git says, "You can't get" this ingredient or that ingredient, it just means that they're not looking too hard, or they're not ordering their product to their own specifications. And you can certainly do that. From meats, to flour, to salt and more. While he MAY have studied at a cooking school, it is painfully obvious that he's not actually WORKED in kitchens. He is ultimately a dabbler.

You'll forgive me if I take what a dabbler says with a certain degree of reservation. Especially when he recites the oft repeated lie that "cooking is based on tradition without knowing why." That is perhaps the thing that soured me to this, especially given that it is essentially a rip on about half a dozen books in the last ten years. It's NOT a movement. It's NOT anything new. Food science, oddly enough, has been around for a damn long while, and oddly enough, supported and studied by pretty damn much EVERY culinary program in the world. And actually taught to new chefs as they come up.

This just sounds like sour grapes: "food scientists are just dabblers because they haven' ...


I just want to point out that the crepe ratio is wrong on the cover of the book.
 
2017-11-06 11:29:52 PM  

Ashelth: I just want to point out that the crepe ratio is wrong on the cover of the book.


What do you think it's supposed to be?
 
2017-11-06 11:31:10 PM  
I'm fond of this one:

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-07 12:04:53 AM  
I have Beard and the Bread Bible books, but I'm still a novice bread maker. My next ongoing project is to make every recipe in Beard's book once. I'm hoping by then the stuff in the Bread Bible won't appear so overly elaborate.

The bread bible lady cares WAY more than I do about certain ingredients and practices. Which I suppose she should. But if she's trying to get newbies into bread making, she needs to dial back the geekery some. Every time I look at a recipe that catches my fancy in there I inevitably end up saying "I'm not doing that much work for it". It may be fantastic, but I might be willing to put in the work on something elaborate maybe once a month. I usually blow that energy on making a big batch of something I can freeze and eat off of for the next month or so, not on bread.

/Decent cook
//not a chef
///or a foodie
 
2017-11-07 12:42:34 AM  

itcamefromschenectady: RogermcAllen: Theaetetus: This just sounds like sour grapes: "food scientists are just dabblers because they haven't actually WORKED in kitchens like me!" You may know how to cook a fine steak, hubie, but Monsieur Maillard wasn't a dabbler.

Any time you have to put "science" after your degree then it isn't really science.  See also social science and political science.

What about earth science and computer science?


CS isn't science either.  It's basically maths.  i.e. study of algorithms.  And wtf is Earth Science?  Advanced geography? ;)
 
2017-11-07 01:25:40 AM  

itcamefromschenectady: RogermcAllen: Theaetetus: This just sounds like sour grapes: "food scientists are just dabblers because they haven't actually WORKED in kitchens like me!" You may know how to cook a fine steak, hubie, but Monsieur Maillard wasn't a dabbler.

Any time you have to put "science" after your degree then it isn't really science.  See also social science and political science.

What about earth science and computer science?


Hmmm, earth science is limited to studies since you can do a proper set of experiments. But it can pull from chemistry and physics to make the studies.

Computer science involves more language and arts. Unless you're designing circuits, which is engineering.

Political science builds on experimental results and stuff from laboratory psychology, and is little more than marketing with more rules about the money.
 
2017-11-07 01:46:46 AM  
The best bread I've ever had was in Iceland, so if it isn't Icelandic, it's crap.

\same goes for lobster
 
2017-11-07 03:48:20 AM  

itcamefromschenectady: I've got no kneejerk reaction unlike the know-it-alls here.

But here are some of the books I have in case you are interested in baking bread:

[images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com image 260x329]
[f8383f377ae0dbf72580-915d22ed3472915d​fddff20d58b567d0.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com image 290x475]
[www.kingarthurflour.com image 456x456]
[ecx.images-amazon.com image 334x500]

img.fark.netView Full Size


Well there's the title of my book advocating a fibre-rich diet gone.
 
2017-11-07 04:12:01 AM  
Whothehellcares.jpg
 
2017-11-07 04:52:11 AM  
As the son of a French baker : Goddammit, it's just bread. It's not that complicated. Yeast, floor, salt and water.
 
2017-11-07 04:53:20 AM  
*Flower
 
2017-11-07 04:53:43 AM  
*Flour

And screw you.
 
2017-11-07 07:49:40 AM  

padraig: *Flour

And screw you.


Well, okay. I'm not normally into Irishmen because of the smell.
 
2017-11-07 10:34:30 AM  
Bread is both science and art.
Sure, you can throw ingredients together and get passable results. But if you want the good stuff, consistency is key: temperature being the most important, followed by measuring (ingredients), and then time (knead, rest, rise, proof, bake, etc.).
This coming from an engineer and one who is currently building a wood-fired brick oven. Grand opening soon!
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-07 10:36:50 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-07 10:50:57 AM  

wildcardjack: itcamefromschenectady: RogermcAllen: Theaetetus: This just sounds like sour grapes: "food scientists are just dabblers because they haven't actually WORKED in kitchens like me!" You may know how to cook a fine steak, hubie, but Monsieur Maillard wasn't a dabbler.

Any time you have to put "science" after your degree then it isn't really science.  See also social science and political science.

What about earth science and computer science?

Hmmm, earth science is limited to studies since you can do a proper set of experiments. But it can pull from chemistry and physics to make the studies.

Computer science involves more language and arts. Unless you're designing circuits, which is engineering.

Political science builds on experimental results and stuff from laboratory psychology, and is little more than marketing with more rules about the money.


Computer Science is mostly algorithms, optimization, data structures, and practicing theory. I would liken to something like applied physics, research pharmacy, or chemistry lab work in terms of level of scienciness. But like most fields, there's a big range from people doing theoretical work and designing new languages, compilers, and frameworks... Down to copy pasta code monkeys.

I would say I don't like the term for the field, and wish we had our own -istry or -ics, but it turns out there's not really a 3000 year old dead language word meaning to study something which won't exist for 2900 years. And in practice, I think most coders and programmers should be called software engineers, while the hardware engineers is what computer engineering should be called.

\Software architect, trained in a program called computer science.
 
2017-11-07 11:25:31 AM  

RogermcAllen: Theaetetus: This just sounds like sour grapes: "food scientists are just dabblers because they haven't actually WORKED in kitchens like me!" You may know how to cook a fine steak, hubie, but Monsieur Maillard wasn't a dabbler.

Any time you have to put "science" after your degree then it isn't really science.  See also social science and political science.

/about half of the food scientists I know are functionally illiterate when it comes to math
//food scientists are dabblers, chemists do the real work
///Maillard was a chemist


Don't tell the data scientists!

/sort of a data scientist
 
2017-11-07 02:03:58 PM  
How much for the Kindle ebook?
 
2017-11-07 09:16:23 PM  
static.neatorama.comView Full Size
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report