Jump to content

ivan

participating member
  • Posts

    400
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ivan

  1. Such a number can be arrived at by comparing the total possible flavors detected by the tongue with the total possible scents detected by the nose (the latter being thousands of times greater than the former)

    exactly, couldn't have put it better myself. I guess it comes to roughly 98%?

    Lets also define the reasearch as a whole to "limited" on this matter. i dont think they have exactly cracked the code on this one.

    Thanks for the links sl.

    No, if we use the all-possible-sensations approach, the number would be more like 99.9375% aroma and 0.00625% taste. Which is meaningless.

    The only meaningful way to look at it is simply this: flavor is an aggregate of sensations transmitted through taste, aroma and touch. The contributions of these senses vary from individual to individual and from food to food. Even for one individual, there are days when taste is hightened or suppressed, when the sense of smell is acute or diminished. To say that any one source of flavor has a consistent share in contributing to flavor is just not true.

    With regards to the relative importance of these senses, I ask myself the question: if I had to lose any two of my senses, which one would I keep: smell, taste or feel? I have periods when I completely lose my sense of smell; also, I remember what it is like to have no taste and feel (through the administration of novocaine). I would most certainly prefer to keep taste at the expense of feel and smell. As an illustration of this value judgement, compare a glass of strawberry juice with a glass of mineral water embued with strawberry essence.

    There is a tendency in the last 20-30 years to emphasize the role of the olfactory system in the perception of flavor. I believe this is because science has had a series of revelations: our perception of flavor has changed dramatically. However, just because our sense of smell is more discerning and versatile does not mean it is more important in perceiving flavor. Of the two, taste is the less atavistic, more advanced sense. Humans' sense of smell is in evolutionary decline; we rely on it less and less to survive. Taste, however, is in evolutionary ascension: our ancestors had very little need for taste as a survival mechanism, whereas for modern man the development and refinement of taste is part of human mental growth.

    I'm not an expert on the science of flavor, only an enthusiast. Janet Zimmerman (eGullet's own JAZ), however, is an expert. Last year, she posted a fascinating rundown on this subject (click here). Notice that JAZ does not attempt to evaluate the relative contributions of our senses to the perception of flavor. That is the only valid scientific approach, since quantifying the importance of any one sense is purely subjective.

    One thing I would like to restress is the tendency of recent scientific study to dwell on the olfactory component at the expense of taste. I think taste has been foolishly dismissed as a known, finite quantity. But it is not. Just ten or twenty years ago, only four tastes were recognized: sweet, sour, bitter, salty. In other words, science was telling us that we perceive only 4 tastes, and any other tastes are a combination of those 4. I think we all know that is simply not true. Recently, a fifth taste has been admitted to the list: savory, or umami, or MSG. But please -- that is still not enough. JAZ notes in her article,

    Some would also argue that "metallic" and "alkaline" (or soapy) count as basic tastes; however, since ideally those two tastes do not occur in our foods, I'm going to ignore them here.

    I must respectfully but emphatically disagree. Metallic taste is very prevalent in spring water, and is a delicious component of the flavor of tea or coffee brewed with this water (just as one example). Anise has a distinct soapy component. And I dare say we can go further yet in defining basic tastes. I think, for instance, the "green" taste of grass or lettuce is basic, and serves as a component in many flavors.

    After getting all excited about the role of smell in flavor, I predict that science will now begin to find an ever-increasing universe of taste.

  2. I've seen all sorts of numbers -- 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%... Usually preceded by the words "up to". But in fact, there is no real way to arrive at a number, because it varries from individual to individual and from food item to food item. Some ingredients like herbs are sensed practically 100% by the olfactory nerves, whereas in the case of salt or sugar, only a small part of their flavor is conveyed through scent. You can come up with a ballpark estimate that illustrates a general pattern, but there is no one number that is always correct.

    The 98% figure is not a feasible numeric model because it reduces the role of actual taste to almost nothing. Such a number can be arrived at by comparing the total possible flavors detected by the tongue with the total possible scents detected by the nose (the latter being thousands of times greater than the former), but what use is such a number? Common sense alone tells us that removing salt, sweet, sour, bitter and umami sensations from a flavor profile leave it substantially depleted of flavor, no matter how good it smells.

  3. Sorry to have wasted my time and any others who bothered to read my posts.

    Far from it. It's now apparent that ChefSwartz' intent in starting this thread was to get someone to do his homework for him, rather than have a discussion. Nonetheless, this has turned out to be a most informative thread. My own thinking on the topic has crystalized. This was not a waste of anyone's time. Well, except for the good Chef's, maybe.

  4. ChefSwartz, "sarcasm" is a bit strong for my flip and irreverant comment, but what I was making fun of was your completely unscientific and arbitrary statement that "taste is 98% smell". That is preposterous on the face of it.

    Why do you begin a thread soliciting opinions and then dismiss those opinions out-of-hand? Andiesenji's observations are cogent, considered, well-informed and based on personal experience. Your response was rude and unwarranted.

  5. I have tasted tomatoes taken from the same plant, some irradiated and some not and there was not a whit of difference even after they had been kept, without refrigeration, for 8 weeks. 

    Yes, but you probably tasted them using the traditional "put in mouth" method. Now that we know that taste is 98% smell, the proper way to taste a tomato is to shove it up your nose. I'm still learning to distinguish some of the more subtle variations, but using the shove-up-nose method I can tell the difference between a Sweet-100 and a Brandywine with my eyes closed.

  6. Of course they would, except for the Luddites.

    Andie, I'd like to make a distinction between Luddites (who object to technological progress specifically when it worsens the quality of life), and Tin-Foil Hat types who are driven by an irrational mistrust of technologies they don't understand and are convinced that government agencies are conspiring to sterilize us and give us cancer.

    True Luddites may embrace irradiation if, as you predict, it will benefit the small farmer. A Luddite would typically oppose the kinds of technology that benefits the factory grower and puts the small farmer out of business.

  7. Don't let anyone tell you that irradiation of food causes cancer!  Quite the reverse.

    So, cancer causes irradiation of food?

    Since the technology used in food irradiation was at least partly advanced by medical research... sure, you can say that.

  8. For a rodent to have been able to push the cork into the bottle, the cork must have been quite loose already. The bottle was lying on its side, which is done to prevent corks from drying out. Does this indicate a defective cork?

  9. I'm sure the food chemists among us will correct me if I'm wrong, but why not substitute a flavoring you DO like? I don't think vanilla does anything to the food but flavor it.

    Sure, that's easy for YOU to say. Why, you might as well leave it out altogether!

    Or use a lot less than what's called for. Adjust it to your tastes and if your tastes can't stand it at all, does as the others have suggested and use a substitution.

    Wait. I just remembered. I like vanilla. It's sarcasm I can't stand. Is there a good substitute for sarcasm?

  10. Of course, another explanation is foul play.

    My thoughts exactly. To me, it looks like the bottle was shot. With a gun.

    Of course, a pencil may have been used with the same effect.

  11. What a great thread!!!!    And Ivan, I wish I could tell you about the time my hubby broke the 7 gal carboy of just-begun homemade champagne against the toilet, and the bathroom was invaded by ants.    Sticky, indeed.

    rachel

    Rachel, I'd love to hear that and any other story your husband may have about making sparkling wine. I took a (still-active) hiatus from home-wine-making just as I was beginning to contemplate making some. Did he go all-out, freezing and disgorging sediment from bottles? That's the daunting part (aside from accidents such as you mentioned). Encourage him to start a thread!

×
×
  • Create New...