Re:“Joy of Cooking” versus the Food Scientist
by emodendroket on Wednesday March 21, 2018 @04:33PM
(#16642093)
I think it seems accurate enough:
> Wansink also insisted on only comparing recipes that bore identical names in different “Joy” editions, regardless of the accompanying recipes, which sometimes led him to compare two entirely different dishes. He liked to point to gumbo as one of the most egregious calorie gainers, but the recipe from 1936, a clear soup of chicken and sliced vegetables simmered in water, has almost nothing in common with the sausage-studded, roux-thickened chicken variety featured in the 2006 book. “It’s like comparing a Chateaubriand to a whole roast steer,” Heathers said, “and saying they’re both roast beef.”
Presumably this would also exclude many recipes whose names were changed but are basically the same.
Re:“Joy of Cooking” versus the Food Scientist
by cwyers on Wednesday March 21, 2018 @05:54PM
(#16642788)
It was a sample. Wansink's conclusion wasn't that the Joy Of Cooking got fattier, it was that home cooking got fattier, and Joy of Cooking was a proxy for that. So it was a sample from the larger universe of home cooking.
It wasn't a sample, it was supposedly (but very much not, in fact) the entire universe, that is, the set of recipes that were present across the entire time period from the first to the most recent edition, and thus could be compared across time.