I’ve asked a few people who’ve then looked at me with some concern so I thought I’d cast the net wider. I don’t know if I’ve always been like this or whether it happened at some point down the road - and if it did what might have caused it – but I seem to be into the texture of what I eat at least as much as the actual taste.
Is that normal or weird?
I don’t actually know how to measure this, even. Say I feel like a snack and I think I’ll have a cheese and tomato sandwich. Nice. But what I’m thinking about more is the combination of crust with bread, and both of those with cheese – see, three textures. Then I think that has to have a clear crunch in it so I need a packet of crisps as well. Snack complete!
But those choices are mostly based on how different textures compliment each other rather than how they taste together - by about 70-30%, I’d guess.
(btw, the water is muddied somewhat because at another level I believe I’m selecting nutrients my body wants/needs at that particular time, but that doesn’t necessarily precluded texture as a preference – I digress).
Anyone else more texture orientated than taste, and why do you think that is ?
I think a lot of people respond to the texture of food, but it usually puts them off it rather than the reverse. I know loads of people who can’t stand mushrooms, mussels and squid (not me though :)) and it’s not the taste they don’t like, it’s the chewy texture.
In terms of liking foods, taste is my main motivator, although I’m more likely to dislike foods based on texture than on taste (I dislike most foods with a “slippery” or jellied texture, with the odd exception of smoked salmon).
Me, too, on liking for taste, disliking for texture, with one difference: aside from downright slimy things that are just ICKY (raw oysters and the like) it’s an inconsistent texture that makes my gorge rise. I don’t mind things that, on their own, have a “mixed” texture, but when I get that lump in my milk, or a bit of crunch in eggs, seafood or hamburger, that’s it, I am totally done eating. For the day. My gag reflex is permanently set to overdrive, I’m afraid.
The choice between taste and texture is too difficult to make; consider:
Chocolate cream pie (essentially a large amount of dark chocolate melted into a large amount of cream and chilled and set into a crisp pastry or biscuit shell) - without the silky, buttery texture of the filling and the crisp bite of the base, it would just be a chocolate biscuit, but without the bittersweet darkness of the chocolate and the nutty wheatiness of the base, it would just be goo with crunchy bits.
Good taste and good texture are both utterly indispensible to a pleasant eating experience - to try to score one against the other is (to my mind) impossible.
Re: Lifeonwry’s post: one thing guaranteed to put me off my food for the rest of the day are those streaks of blood you occasionally get in eggs. It just makes it all too clear exactly WHAT I’m eating. And I’m not normally squemish and will eat pretty much anything. Except Marmite.
I pretty much agree with everyone so far - the taste is paramount, the texture an important close second - both are equally considered in making a snack - especially a sandwich - add in some crisp lettuce solely for crunch factor rather than taste, then some pepper for taste but no texture.
I am put off certain foods by texture though - I (and yes, I know how much I’m missing out) don’t eat beef for this reason. I like the flavour of a good steak but can’t stomach the texture of the meat at all - the sinuous texture ruins the taste, for me. Same idea with oysters - all texture and no taste (other than salt), to me.
Taste - although texture can turn me off. When I was in Japan they served me raw beef (they told me it was raw horse, but I think they were just busting my stones) and although it didn’t really taste bad, the texture was weird and kinda grossed me out.
Interesting that so many like based on taste and dislike based on texture. Problem for me is I don’t dislike. Period!
Btw, everyone please ignore poor woolly. He’s Australian, you see. By definition he’ll bitter and twisted for the next four years. I hope.
Doesn’t anyone like based on texture ?
I like pasta based on texture. It has no real flavor itself and serves mostly as a carrier for the sauce, but eating rice with tomato sauce (or potatoes or tofu or any other bland food) is just not the same as eating pasta with tomato sauce (and is usually gross). Whole-wheat pasta is also gross because of the gritty, mealy consistency it has.
Like on texture? Iceburg lettuce - practically no taste but essential with Chilli for crunchyness, otherwise you’ve got babyfood (OK maybe not healthy babyfood with the amount of chilli that I use).
I heard an interesting theory at a cooking demonstration. The chef stated that different socities value different things in food. Americans in general are particularly concerned with texture. We avoid slimy, mushy, jellied things to the point of having a national aversion to vegetables (really, there are some countries where “I don’t like vegetables” is an unthinkable statement). However, we’ll eat all the bland, unspiced food in the world.
The chef’s comparision was India. He said in India they will cook the hell out of stuff to get just the right taste. If it takes seven hour to get spinach to taste right, it’ll be cooked for seven hours. They have much more tolerance for mushy food and food of a fairly uniform texture, but won’t put up with blandness.
It seems to hold true. Especially when you consider the number of Americans (think of older generations) that stoutly refuse to eat Indian food precisely because of the texture.
I, personally, love Indian food. I’d eat a good dish of saag paneer even if I didn’t have Naan and papadums to set off the mushyness. When I was a kid, sometimes I’d just eat handfuls of ground spices just to get the taste. I guess I’m more of a taste person.
The food industry spends vast amounts of money on a thing called mouthfeel - the way a food feels in your mouth, (Ya don’t say) against your teeth, rolling around your tongue, before and during chewing.
All that money can’t be solely for your benefit, L_C, unless you are really famous and just not letting on
Mouthfeel has nothing to do with taste - if you held your nose, closed your eyes and ate a spoonful of shampoo, you wouldn’t be able to differentiate it from yoghurt, based on how it felt in your mouth,
That’s mouthfeel.
Consider Cadbury’s chocolate.
If texture wasn’t important, who is it that’s buying all the Flakes, eschewing the Dairy Milk?
On those instances when I’ve indulged in the Forbidden Herb, texture becomes extremely important while eating. Otherwise it’s not that important with the exception of a few foods I can’t stand to eat because of the texture (mushrooms and tomatos chief among them).
For me it’s a combination of taste, texture & smell. If I don’t like the texture, it doesn’t matter how good something tastes. Same goes for smell, although you don’t find many foods that smell bad that taste good - the exceptions I’ve encountered are cabbage and bleu cheese.
Things I hate because of smell & texture - New York style cheesecake. It smells slightly sour because of the cheese or whatever it is that makes the base, and the texture is this weird mix of hard and gooey, gooshy ickiness. I can eat my mom’s cheesecake, which we’ve nicknamed “cherry glop,” but that’s because it’s mostly cherry filling and the cheesecake part is mostly cool whip, and I can eat Hank’s chocolate raspberry cheesecake, but it’s mostly chocolate mousse with raspberry swirl.
Another thing - I absolutely hate ricotta cheese. I can take low fat cottage cheese, but that’s because it has two definite textures - it has hard curds and liquid. Ricotta is some weird bastardization of the two - thick liquid, soft curds, and a really gross aftertaste. IMHO, of course. My family loves cheesecake and can eat ricotta directly out of the tub. Blech.
