The Science of Cooking

Rating:
Summary: chemistry 101
Review: Don't buy this book if you're looking for a cookbook. The recipes listed in this book are bare bones basic, with no flare. I felt like I was back in chemistry 101 while reading this book, and could only read a little at a time in order to digest all that was presented. Barham gives an excellent description and portrayal of fats, sugars, starches, gluten, proteins, etc., but doesn't flesh out his recipes at all. Each item in his recipes is there for a purpose, and he explains each of their purposes. But I felt that after the basics were presented, he could have added some extra ingredients to jazz up the dishes a little. This could have shown what the 'unnecessary' ingredients do to enhance a dish and how they alter the chemical composition.
After reading his book though, I feel as though I truly understand the processes going on in my kitchen, and somehow, it has taken away the 'art' of cooking. I can't just go play in my kitchen now - I feel like I'm doing a chemistry experiment:)
The book is presented in the metric system, along with British terms that make it hard to follow every now and then.
I would really recommend this book to upper high school students as well as college freshman for the practical chemistry application.

Rating:
Summary: Great stuff for the science-minded cook
Review: Fascinating exploration into the physics of cooking, written in an engaging and detailed style. Probably better for the scientist who cooks than for the cook who's into science, since the language is sometimes a little dense for the layperson. Worth working through, though.

One caveat: the author is British, and recipes, measurements, and terms are geared for the British/European cook. This means you'll find a complete explanation of sausage rolls and nothing about popcorn. Just FYI.

Rating:
Summary: Great, but everything is metric!
Review: I know we in the US are behind in catching up to the metric system, but certainly our sheer population and market size dictate that an edition edited for our us should be released. Other than this, the book is excellent as an introduction to the subject of food science. I will argue though, that science is never a substitute for the masters. Cooking can be viewed as a science (like here), or an art (as in the great chefs collections).

Rating:
Summary: Gets right to the science with little digression
Review: I recently purchased "On Food and Cooking", hoping to find a good, comprehensive book on food science. While there was a lot of good detail in that book, much of the detail was buried among less interesting historical digressions, and the space taken up by those digressions seemed to be depriving me of some details I really did care about.

In contrast, "The Science of Cooking" makes no pretense of being encyclopedic in its coverage of food science. Instead, the focus is directly on the chemical and physical processes at work in the kitchen. As such, it succeeds admirably, and much of the information that seemed "missing" from "On Food and Cooking" here seems simply absent because it is outside the scope of the work.

While the introductory material gets a little condescending at times (I mean, who actually needs to be told what an atom is?), and some of the sidebars get overly technical for most people (do you really care about differential equations?), such sections are easily ignored. The few really queasy technical discussions are even set in a different background color to let you know they may not be for the faint-of-heart (and the rest of those colored sidebars are quite readable and interesting on their own).

Be aware that the author is a scientist, not a chef. This book is tightly focused on chemical and physical effects of ingredients. Things like flavor and food safety are not part of the discussion, beyond a few passing mentions. Most notably, the author repeatedly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the effects of salt on flavor, and talks of things like clarifying cold stocks with raw egg whites without a discussion of slmonella (which is admittedly perceived as less of a problem in the author's native Britain).

The book is organized like a textbook, with sidebars, tables, and even little experiments at the end of each chapter. There are useful conversion tables, and charts on various topics. It is easy to skip over what you find uninteresting and to skip directly to the information you need when using the book for reference.

The information here is valuable, concise, and well-presented. You'll find yourself understanding things like the difference between saturated and unsaturated fats (and why you should care as a cook), how foams form (and why they collapse), why and how cooking affects flavor and texture, etc.

I was able to read through this book very quickly and easily, while learning (and even retaining) more information than I normally would from a non-fiction book of this sort. This book is definitely an excellent overview of the processes involved in cooking, and indeed, probably contains as much information as most of us are ever likely to use on the subject.

Why 4 stars and not 5, you ask? There are some important omissions that bothered me. The most glaring examples are that there's no discussion of osmotic pressure, or the role of pH in various processes, topics that "On Food and Cooking" covered admirably. The section on cooking utensils and appliances is largely a waste of space, in part because the author is British and doesn't have access to many of the alternatives that have become common in serious American kitchens. Be warned, the book is very British in its use of language. You will need to know that "hob" is a British English for "stove", for example. Also, all of the recipes use metric weights and volumes, so should you actually wish to follow them (not something I'd particularly recommend), you'll need an accurate metric food scale and measuring cups.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Science and Culinary Technique. Highly Recommended
Review: Reviewing `The Science of Cooking' by Bristol University (UK) don Peter Barham gives me the pleasure of commenting on a book with differential equations, a subject for which I received my all time lowest grade (a D) in school. Luckily you, dear reader, these equations are no more than window dressing in a sidebar on thermodynamics which, if nothing else, convince us that Dr. Barham knows what he is talking about. And yes, dear reader, Dr. Barham most certainly knows of what he speaks. And, he does an excellent job of communicating this information to the layman.

This excellent book can be evaluated on at least three different levels. On the highest level, where Barham talks about the relevance of science to cooking, the author is just a bit weak. Early in the book, he compares a cook's following a recipe to the conduct of an experiment, and I think this metaphor simply does not work, and, I think the author repudiates this notion later in the book when he does a true description of how a recipe would be written if it were an experiment. A second major weakness in his talking about science is where he describes both a recipe (experiment) and a theory as a model. Philosophers of science clearly distinguish experiment from explanation (theory) and while `model' is a good word for theory, it is definitely not a good word for experiment. Oddly enough, there are important roles for experiment in cookery, but only when one is truly developing recipes and examining the properties of a new foodstuff product. Thankfully, the author gets on to the important business at hand of actually describing science and applying it to cooking, two tasks he does with great skill.

Unlike Harold McGee, Barham correctly puts his introduction to basic chemistry in the front of the book. I am sure that thousands of people will stumble over this with unprintable mutterings in an effort to get to the writing about pots and potatoes, but you must gives serendipity a fighting chance. A fair number of readers will pick up on this stuff and it will clearly improve their understanding of what follows. This is especially true as Dr. Barham or his book design team has done an excellent job of selecting illustrations of the basic organic molecules of which he speaks. There is a risk here that since I studied organic chemistry I may not have the same eye of a chemical innocent, but I think not. I believe reasonably intelligent people prefer the straight skinny rather than explanations tailored for 12 year olds. In addition to basic chemistry, Dr. Barham opens the subject of cooking with an overview of the science of food and heat and food and the senses. Here begins what is Dr. Barham's greatest single contribution to food science writing, and the thing that would make this book a superb textbook on food science. In each chapter, Barham supplies two or more experiments on food science that can easily be done at home or in a standard school chemistry lab with no expensive special equipment.

I must also note that Dr. Barham is crystal clear on methods of heat distribution. This is important, as Alton Brown's first book has a major error in its opening discussion of heat transfer methods in that he does not rate convection with as much importance as conduction and radiation. Dr. Barham corrects this error by citing that in fact, convection is the most important means of heat transfer in ovens.

The next chapter deals with cooking tools and the materials from which they are made. While this chapter is no match for the detail in Alton Brown's book on kitchen equipment, it does include a few cautions that I do not recall Alton's having mentioned. The most interesting is the warning against the very expensive stainless steel sheathed pots with copper or aluminum cores that extend all the way up the sides of the pot. While others have recommended this, the author warns this may cause hot spots high up on the wall of the saucepan that may have undesirable consequences if hot liquid splashes against the even hotter metal high in the pan. Unfortunately, the good doctor does not back this observation up with a demonstration, so it is no better than an anecdotal observation, but I will feel a bit more respectful to the cookware lines with only a disk of high conducting metal in the bottom.

The first real foody subject is `Meat and Poultry'. I find it a bit odd that the author says that meat cookery is the one place where an understanding of science can make the biggest difference in cooking results. I can say with confidence that a scientific view of things is probably at least as important, if not more so in baking, where the effect of errors in measuring ingredients can be truly disastrous (or inventive, depending on how you look at it).

This chapter is the first appearance of actual recipes and the second great contribution to food science writing (first being the experiments). Here, Dr. Barham not only gives excellently explained recipes; he also gives great little tables of problems that may arise with various cooking methods and how to solve the problems. There is little that is new here except that the presentation gets a lot of the ideas across more effectively than simple narrative. Shirley Corriher uses a similar tabular presentation, although her information is more proactive than diagnostic in that it explains the reasons for steps in the procedure rather than giving solutions for problems.

Be warned that all units are metric and there are some unexplained English references here and there, such as the term `A4' for letter paper. I recommend this book very highly. It doesn't have Alton Brown's humor or Shirley Corriher's southern charm, but it is a very, very sound book, once you get past the first three pages.


Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but contains a mistake
Review: The author does a good job describing the scientific (especially biochemical) basis behind cooking. However, he makes a fundamental mistake regarding thermodynamics when he states that metals tend to have higher heat capacities than water, and therefore take longer to heat up in an oven at a fixed temperature. This is wrong for two major reasons: a) metals tend to have lower heat capacities than water, not higher, and b) metals have extraordinarily high thermal conductivities, speeding their heating rates up dramatically. Anybody can verify that a piece of metal will heat up much more quickly than an equal mass of water in an oven at a fixed temperature. Perhaps it shouldn't, but mistakes like this one make me suspicious of the validity of the rest of the work.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but contains a mistake
Review: The author does a good job describing the scientific (especially biochemical) basis behind cooking. However, he makes a fundamental mistake regarding thermodynamics when he states that metals tend to have higher heat capacities than water, and therefore take longer to heat up in an oven at a fixed temperature. This is wrong for two major reasons: a) metals tend to have lower heat capacities than water, not higher, and b) metals have extraordinarily high thermal conductivities, speeding their heating rates up dramatically. Anybody can verify that a piece of metal will heat up much more quickly than an equal mass of water in an oven at a fixed temperature. Perhaps it shouldn't, but mistakes like this one make me suspicious of the validity of the rest of the work.