/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>13077659
Is it a fad? I used it very sparingly and pretty much only in a handful of dishes.

>>13077659
Soy
Avocado
Sriracha
"Umami"
desu senpai

>i dont like something
>no one should like it

castrate yourself

>>13077683
>umami
>fad
Personally I think the "sweet" fad needs to die. Fuck sweet shit.

>>13077671
Fuck off, I love the juicy and hazy IPAs despite resisting them at first under the expectation that they were going to be some faggot shit. This is a fad that needs to be nurtured.

>>13077688
Sweet != calories.

>>13077721
(you) != reading comprehension.

>>13077671
>>13077717
WHat do they taste like? IPAs with tropical fruit notes?

>>13077726
Other reasons for limiting sweets being ..

>>13077736
Wow, you really do lack basic reading comprehension.

>>13077740
>[Anon backpedaling behind non-responses].

>>13077747
Go back and read the fucking reply. I know autism makes it difficult to pick up sarcasm, especially on the internet, but it's not that difficult.

>>13077688
I think he means the term being used instead of savory

>>13077757
Those two terms aren't interchangeable, and nobody ever used "savory" to refer to a basic taste before umami became a thing.

>>13077677
Try reducing a cup of balsamic vinegar by half and using it on ice cream.

>>13077761
>Those two terms aren't interchangeable
They quite literally are, faggot weeb.

>>13077791
>japan scientifically isolates and identifies a universally agreed upon 5th taste and names it "umami"
>n-no!! we've always had that! we just called it "savoy"
You may have some weird psychological aversion to anime girls or something, but you can't just recreate history because you don't like a particular word.

>>13077755
>>"Personally I think the "sweet" fad needs to die. Fuck sweet shit."
>"Sarcasm".
Here, anon. You dropped something.

>>13077818
>if i take one clause out of context i can make him look dumb
Nope. You're just continually showing off your lack of reading comprehension (seriously, it's not that hard; you'll get there eventually).

>>13077833
It was a new-subtopic response.

>>13077818
how do you not read the sarcasm in his reply you troglodyte

>>13077851
It's a huge aspect of diets-discussion, sweetness being in various grocery items ..

>>13077806
Cr*nge

>>13077841
>>13077864
>i was just pretending to be retarded

>>13077958
You're subverting so much that it's lying.

>>13077975
Unless you've been baiting this whole time just come out and explain what you're trying to say, and I'll do the same.

>>13077728
They basically just taste like any old IPA (ie, overly citrus-y garbage) but pretentious hipster faggots toting themselves as "beer experts" will act like it's some kind of mark of quality.

>>13078004
.. I'm busy.

>>13078010
Hopefully you're googling "ellipses".

>my retard ass just discovered some ingredient so it must be a fad
i fucking despise ameribrainlets so much.

>>13077806
>can't just recreate history because you don't like a particular
Liberals do it all the time.

>>13078073
Fuck off bringing politics into everything, especially when it's just straight up bait.

>>13077659
>>13077683
My childhood staples are fads now?

>>13077671
I don't drink, but those taste great when I sample them.

>>13078097
Everything is politics, sweaty. What you actually want to not discuss is "ear elephant drama"

>>13078111
>My childhood staples are fads now?
>>13078119
>Everything is politics
I agree with you on both points, but you're still a fucking idiot.

>>13077736
Not everyone enjoys highly sweet things.

>>13077761
I've heard savory a lot before umami became a meme.

>>13078251
Of course you did, but it just generally meant "not sweet". Yeah, people would say shit like, "this is a very savory dish", and they were kind of vaguely referring to umami with that, but the term wasn't defined as such.

>>13078250
>>13078259
Conjectural.

>>13078326
Those posts have anything to do with one another, but both are factually correct.

>>13078340
*don't have anything to do with one another

of course my thread would become shitposting central.

>>13078340
>>13078350
Some (plausibly rare) demographics "not liking highly sweet things" is a). Pavlovian – in other words, the wiring for them liking it is, for normal invididuals, there and furthermore – similar to the other common biases – "quickly dropped when social benefits are found"; and b). irrelevant to sweets being "a fad" / popular.

The percentage of "savory" discussion being specifically about "umami" (as if it was some physiological rarity – even if, when experienced, it was mostly categorized subconsciously) further being about "not sweet" is a huge, uneducated projection.

>>13078259
That's pretty much true. Things with mushroom or tomato have always been considered highly savory and meaty, and I definitely noticed that being pointed out before the umami fad as well as foods being describe as sweet and savory. But, I think most people just thought of it as not sweet since most people, even those who regularly browse a cooking board, know/understand very little about what they shove down their throats. Now that umami has become popular, people who wouldn't have otherwise conceptualized savoriness (most people) have become aware or more aware of how it stands out in certain foods.

>>13078390
We're all arguing about a sarcastic joke reply, but really there are plenty of people who would rather just a hint of sweetness from their carrots or caramelized onions in their meal and pass up dessert for tea or coffee with no sugar added. Honestly the fact that you can't imagine some people don't like *highly* sweet things shows your inner amerilard.
t. American

>>13078396
Meat has been considered savory .. That was basically the standard.

>>13078422
There are stark contrasts between not liking extremely sugary things and not liking really sweet things ..

>>13078435
What's your criteria for the difference between extremely sweet and really sweet?

>>13078390
Many people grow out of highly sweet things (which doesn't mean they don't like sweet flavors at all); I literally can't drink an entire can of coke without getting disgusted. It's not just anecdotal either; sugar is a drug and dulls your taste buds.
>>13078390
>as if it was some physiological rarity – even if, when experienced, it was mostly categorized subconsciously
That's kind of the point, though. Naming and applying a category to something that was otherwise just experienced as a vague phenomenon alters the way we experience it. Just think about the first time you ever did a wine tasting and tried to explain what you thought, and then someone else started using a bunch of descriptive terms like "banana" or "charcoal", and all of a sudden you were like, "yeah, now that someone threw out that analogy I can see it, but I'm getting a little more mango and passion fruit".
tl;dr - language allows us to better understand what we experience. It may seem pretentious, but being able to articulate what you're experiencing, in my opinion, makes the experience much more worthwhile (not because you can say it, but because saying it makes you experience it in a more in depth way).

>>13078119
Nope. Politics is the hobgoblin of small minds. Eliminate your hobgoblin, although you'll still have a small mind of course.

>>13078456
There, specifically, was sugar, even alluding to .. the syrupy and low-health (high calorie; quickly absorbed carbs; and for very limited nutrient contents; [other assocations]) aspects.

Are you
>>13077726
>>13077688.

>>13078422
>amerilard
This is why we have the term "flyover". It's not a black and white, necessary and sufficient conditions concept, but we all know what it means.

>>13078422
>me
I eat a dessert maybe twice a year. Never buy candy. I rarely eat fruits because too sweet.
I do love the sweetness of a steamed broccoli though.

Yes, I'm American and yes, I'm overweight 190 at 6 foot. I eat a fuck load of whatever is for dinner. Usually till it hurts

>>13078477
He's not (me), and you still haven't learned how to use ellipses.

>>13077659
I’m tired of the add bacon to everything deal, mostly because the people who obsess over it act like idiots. It’s like adding an egg to something, half the time it’s just convoluting everything instead of truly making something more than it was.

>>13078477
No. I realize the people crave carbs/sugars, but you can get them by eating rice and beans instead of sweet things. I wouldn't argue that people don't like some sweet things like a some dates and cheese or even glazed ham. But plenty of people don't care for soda, prepared desserts, syrups, and stuff like that. I'd take plain full fat yogurts with nuts over the sweet variety any day.

>>13078464
You're still associating "highly sweet" with "sugary". That's been an aspect of the discussion as far back as the initial response (>>13077721).

PS: Sugar dulling sensations is sometimes caused by neurochemical downregulation (from low amounts, etc.) which are supplementable (via substrates). Beyond that, "hungers are require for rewards from food (and alcohol)".

>>13078464
It's been called savory though, with meat being the standard example. That's why it hasn't been some innovation, which is exactly what that anon was on about.

>>13078488
It being used (instead of a comma) for pausing and separating a large, potentially mysterious suggestion is reasonable.

Putting quotes around "alluding" is plausibly more reasonable.

>>13078515
As already repeated, sweet != calories, and (thusly) it isn't possible "getting that" from beans ..

PS: Not liking some sweet things != "sweets".

>>13078542
Okay, so you're just trolling ".."

>>13078542
That anon's right. You have no idea how to use ellipsis, which is "..." with no space after the final word in the sentence.

>>13078073
>LIBRULS!!!!11111

kek

>>13078556
Actually, no.

>>13078559
Two dots is quicker, and still reasonable. You're basically appealing to the dictionary.

Getting upset about two vs. three dots is being anal and is better shelved for QoL.

>>13078592
Post hand.

>>13078596
"Why."

Also, no. My BMI is 20.

>>13078624
.. I just figured you must be either a 50 year old wine aunt cat lady .. or of an ethnicity .. that can't figure out basic syntax ..

>>13078662
>[Projecting some (wrong) garbage].
There's something more reasonably beneficial than shitposting. What you're doing isn't even really considerable as decent.

>>13078676
Sounds to me like anon must have really hit the mark.