> It’s so much easier to measure with a kitchen scale than it is to wonder “did I pack the X in too tight or too loose into this cup?”.

Here in the UK, I get irrationally annoyed by seeing recipes that use "U.S." measurements. A "cup" is mostly meaningless to me as I've got lots of different size cups and as you state, it's not a consistent way to measure most ingredients (I can understand it being used for liquids, but even so why not just use ml or weight). When it comes to measuring larger ingredients (e.g. apricots) then the dimensions of this platonic cup come into play and I have to start deriving the optimal (almost) sphere packing to figure out how many apricots to use.

▲ qlm a day ago | parent | next [-]

I’m in the UK too and you can buy measuring cups here easily. It doesn’t mean “a mug from your cupboard”. It _is_ a volume measurement.

I do agree it doesn’t make sense for things that aren’t fluid-like.

▲ pjc50 a day ago | parent | next [-]

Note that UK measuring cups are not exactly the same size as US measuring cups, just as US and UK gallons are not the same size. Yes, this is infuriating. Fortunately you can buy US ones over the internet, or convert it into metric like a normal person.

▲ ndsipa_pomu a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Cups" are also usually labelled on measuring jugs too. I'd refuse on principle to buy a specific measuring cup.

	▲	lostlogin a day ago \| parent [-]
		I use the scales for everything and convert recipes to weight once I have them working. It’s a game changer and works so much better.

▲ traceroute66 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> It _is_ a volume measurement

Yawn.

Except there's no such thing as a "volume measurement":

   - The so-called "cups" will have different manufacturing processes, some will be a bit smaller, some will be bit larger.  Plastic cups will warp and deform with time.
   - When measuring dry materials like flour, the amount in your "cup" depends on your usage.  Are you weighing sifted flour or flour out of the bag ?  Are you accidentally/deliberately compressing the dry goods when using your cup ? (e.g. are you scooping straight from the bag of flour).
   - etc. etc. etc.

Just weight the damn ingredients using a scale. There's a reason no professional kitchen in the world uses "cups".

▲

fireflash38 a day ago | parent | next [-]

For casual bakers, exact precision using grams can help... Or it might not matter at all. You'd need to have everything else be as precise for it to matter. Are you weighing your eggs? Do you adjust based on the humidity of the air? Do you know all of the hot spots in your oven and is the thermometer accurate?

It's science, but ya gotta realize you arent baking a sphere in a vacuum ya know?

At least a gram is a gram is a gram everywhere in the world!

▲

traceroute66 a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Are you weighing your eggs?

Yes, always.

I don't know what its like where you are, but where I am you can get eggs either in mixed packets, or sorted by size.

So where I am, 1 egg != 1 egg unless you weigh it.

It doesn't matter for soufflé's or meringues. But for everything else you'll have problems if you use random sized eggs.

> Do you adjust based on the humidity of the air?

Absorption capability of flour tends to be more important.

> Do you know all of the hot spots in your oven

Put it in fan mode and reduce the temperature. Hot spot problem disappears.

	▲	dolmen a day ago \| parent [-]
		Also: egg sizes standards are not universal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_egg_sizes

▲

Dylan16807 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

A nice packed cup can fit like 50% more than a very loose cup. It's a much bigger issue "exact precision".

For eggs, as long as you know the right category of egg it'll be within 10% and that's a lot less of a worry.

▲

t-3 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Professional kitchens doing environmentally-sensitive cooking are going to have climate controlled areas and tools that make that work. Your kitchen probably doesn't. Many recipes will have wildly varying demands for flour (among other things) based on humidity, ambient temperature, elevation, the water, and the flour being used. Volume estimates end up being more accurate to the process than precise weights.

▲

eesmith a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I fully agree that weighing is better, but if you apply your standards to weighing you'll end up concluding there's also no such thing as "weight measurement."

- The so-called "weight" will differ depending on the type of scale and how it's used. People used mechanical kitchen scales just fine even when some measured a bit less and a bit more

- While digital scales can be more accurate, accuracy can still vary, and of course the reported weight can vary depending on where an object is on the scale or how the scale is set up. (Yes, I've used a scale that wasn't on a smooth flat surface. It worked out fine.)

- "Dry materials" like flour are hygroscopic, and even though weighing is better than measuring by volume, you end up weighing the flour + water, when what you want is just the weight of the flour (e.g. you may have to consider the storage history of your flour)

- There's the ~0.4 % weight difference between the equator and the poles.

Yes, these are all very picky, but that's how your "no such thing as" comes across to someone who grew up using volume measurement in the home kitchen.

Instead, simply say that weight measurement results in more reliable and predictable cooking. Perhaps also add that cleanup can be a lot easier when ingredients don't need intermediate staging.

▲ inferiorhuman a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No need for scare quotes, US customary units are a thing. A US customary cup is, at least, quite standard at 8 fluid ounces. This is more standardized than the unit of measure used in British recipes and whatnot. The issues surrounding volumetric measurements for dry goods is an entirely separate matter. 240 mL of apricots is just as useless as 1 cup of apricots.

▲ flyinghamster a day ago | parent | next [-]

Keep in mind it goes further than that. US customary volume units don't match up with British ones.

One British gallon is about 4.5 liters, where a US gallon is about 3.8. Quarts, pints, and cups follow, but fluid ounces are another thing. A US gallon is divided into 128 fl. oz., while a British gallon is 160. This results in a US fluid ounce of about 29.6 ml, vs. 28.4 ml for the British one, and also affects teaspoons and tablespoons.

▲ kruador a day ago | parent [-]

Strictly, UK teaspoons are 5 ml and tablespoons 15 ml. The metric tablespoons already used in Europe were probably close enough to half an Imperial fluid ounce for it not to matter for most purposes.

My kids' baby bottles were labelled with measurements in metric (30 ml increments) and in both US and Imperial fluid ounces. The cans of formula were supplied with scoops for measuring the powder, which were also somewhere close to 2 tablespoons/one fluid ounce (use one scoop per 30 ml of water). There are dire warnings about not varying the concentration from the recommended amount, but I assume that it's not really that precise within 1-2% - more about not varying by 10-20%. My kids seem to have survived, anyway.

	▲	inferiorhuman a day ago \| parent [-]
		`Strictly, UK teaspoons are 5 ml and tablespoons 15 ml.` Well there's a rabbit hole I wasn't expecting to go down. I knew that Australian tablespoons (20 mL) were significantly different from US tablespoons. I didn't know that UK tablespoons were a whole different beast (14.2 mL), nor did I realize US tablespoons aren't quite 15 mL, and in fact my tablespoon measures are marked 15 mL. 15 mL is handily 1/16 of a US cup so it's easy enough to translate to 1/4 cup (4 tsbsp) and 1/3 cup (5 tbsp). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablespoon

▲ ndsipa_pomu a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> No need for scare quotes, US customary units are a thing.

I understand that other countries (probably North American ones) use the same system too, so thought I was clarifying, not scaring.

> A US customary cup is, at least, quite standard at 8 fluid ounces. This is more standardized than the unit of measure used in British recipes and whatnot

I disagree as British (or non-U.S.) recipes will use a combination of metric and/or imperial sizes depending on their age. Weighing something in grammes is easy and standardised (for most of the Earth's surface at least). Admittedly, imperial measurements can be problematic as a British pint is different to a U.S. pint and "fluid ounces" also have different definitions.

> 240 mL of apricots is just as useless as 1 cup of apricots

I agree - any sane recipe will use something like "5 apricots". I've never seen mL used for measuring whole fruit - grammes would be appropriate for mashed fruit though.

▲ inferiorhuman a day ago | parent [-]

  I disagree as British (or non-U.S.) recipes will use a combination of
  metric and/or imperial sizes depending on their age.

Right, but a cup is not an imperial unit of measure and metric cups didn't really catch on in the UK. So if you're looking at an older British recipe that references cups, good luck.

  any sane recipe will use something like "5 apricots".

This is also a bad idea as common sizes for certain things change over time (e.g. some of the comments here talking about eggs). I don't eat too many apricots, but apples here can vary in size wildly even of the same variety.

▲ ndsipa_pomu a day ago | parent [-]

Can't recall seeing any British recipe that uses cups so the difference between imperial and metric cups is irrelevant to us.

At least with something like "5 apricots", it should be obvious to the cook if they've got really small, big or varying sizes. Meanwhile, the "cup" measurement can vary depending on the order of which you put the apricots into the cup - do you put the smallest fruit in first, or the biggest?

▲ inferiorhuman a day ago | parent [-]

One of my favorite dessert recipes is Dorie Greenspan's French Apple Cake. It calls for "4 large apples". The recipe is equally enjoyable with a wide range of apple mass, but the character is definitely changed depending on what you do. I think baking is a lot more flexible than most folks give it credit for, but getting more precise units helps ensure consistency from cook to cook and from batch to batch.

For reference a friend who'd expatriated to the midwest posted something about some giant apples they bought. I replied with a picture of an average apple I bought, roughly twice the size of theirs.

  Meanwhile, the "cup" measurement can vary depending on the order of which you
  put the apricots into the cup - do you put the smallest fruit in first, or
  the biggest?

Sure, volumetric measurements for solids is generally not great which is why when I transcribe recipes for my own collection I tend to weigh things out.

	▲	ndsipa_pomu a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yep, some recipes don't require precision, but something like a soufflé might. Weighing things out is the correct method. What could be useful is if recipes provided the ratios of the ingredients along with error margins, so that you could easily type in an amount (e.g. 100g flour) and it'd scale the other ingredients to match. However, maybe that's overthinking it.

▲ closewith a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> This is more standardised than the unit of measure used in British recipes and whatnot.

How so?

▲ inferiorhuman a day ago | parent [-]

There's no such thing as an imperial cup ergo the cup is not a standardized measurement. Within US customary units the cup is defined.

▲ Fluorescence a day ago | parent | next [-]

No "cups" in old British recipes I've made but there will be measures you have to look up like a "gill".

Old family recipes would just say things like "add flour" and that amount was taught face-to-face and hands-on where you added enough till it looked "right" because onions and eggs etc. were not a uniform size.

▲ rkomorn a day ago | parent | next [-]

This reminds me of a boxed item I bought ages ago where the instructions were basically: cook to desired doneness, season as desired.

Also reminds me of a coworker in a restaurant in Palo Alto who, when I asked him the recipe for a dressing I needed to make, told me "ginger juice, lemon, and just make it good". It turns out there were a few other ingredients.

▲ inferiorhuman a day ago | parent | prev [-]

  No "cups" in old British recipes I've made but there will be measures
  you have to look up like a "gill".

Counterpoint:

https://oldbritishrecipes.com/collection-of-old-biscuit-reci...

And yeah, depending on how far back you're going or what sources you're using, there will be a lot of vaguely defined quantities. Glen of Glen and Friends on Youtube regularly cooks vintage recipes and gets into how things evolved over time. Most of his old cookbooks are either Canadian or American but from time to time he cooks from UK cookbooks.

	▲	Fluorescence a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'm sure there will be examples and my childhood memories won't be great but that link isn't a good example of British recipes. Most of the instances of "cups" come from the "Edwardian recipes" which is a collection of international recipes including American. It includes in the preface a Table of Measures which is what you do for Brits who see "cup" and ask "what the fuck is that?"! 4 cups flour = 1 quart or 1 lb. 2 cups of butter (solid) = 1 lb. 2¹⁄₂ cups powdered sugar = 1 lb. 1 cup = ¹⁄₂ pint 1 glass = ¹⁄₂ pint 1 pint milk or water = 1 lb. 9 large eggs = 1 lb. 1 table-spoon butter = 1 oz. 1 heaping table-spoon butter = 2 ozs. Butter the size of an egg = 2 ozs. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/68137/68137-h/68137-h.htm#Li...
	▲	ndsipa_pomu a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's notable with that link that old recipes mostly used weights for the ingredients and only a minority used cups

▲ lmm a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> There's no such thing as an imperial cup ergo the cup is not a standardized measurement.

Which is probably part of why British recipes never say cup.

▲ slumberlust a day ago | parent | prev [-]

We are still on the imperial system as a whole. Even within the US people who bake know weight measurement is king.