That's not the claim I'm refuting, this is

> That's also why making your own cakes trying to imitate them quickly becomes a fool's errand. You're never going to beat the chemistry that's in the box, and even if you did it would look more like molecular gastronomy than baking.

My point was that these added ingredients aren't special space magic, they all have a purpose and that purpose is something home bakers can often replicate with simple ingredients.

I'm refuting the notion that it's impossible to best the box because of the exotic ingredients.

I make no claim as to whether box vs common ingredients are better/healthier/etc. They are what they are.

▲

Dylan16807 a day ago | parent [-]

Okay, that's fair then.

But I wish you would have replied to the comment making that claim. Not one by a different person making a different point.

▲

cogman10 a day ago | parent [-]

The comment I replied to stated

> That person listed a lot of completely different ingredients. Did you dismiss them all out of hand for a specific reason?

I gave the specific reason to dismiss those ingredients. I took the two comments together trying to say that the boxed goods do things impossible for a home baker.

I apologize if the intent of my comment wasn't clear.

▲

Dylan16807 a day ago | parent [-]

I'm confused. So you are dismissing them?

Then I do disagree with you. Dismissing the ingredients needs an actual reason they're bad, not just a way to replace them.

If you were only saying it's possible to replace them with simple ingredients, that would not be a dismissal of the ingredients themselves.

> I took the two comments together trying to say that the boxed goods do things impossible for a home baker.

I don't think so. bruce511 was replying to a completely different part of the ancestor comment, disliking the list of chemicals regardless of whether they do something unique, and tavavex was rebutting a dislike of chemicals.

	▲	cogman10 a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Then I do disagree with you. Dismissing the ingredients needs an actual reason they're bad, not just a way to replace them. > If you were only saying it's possible to replace them with simple ingredients, that would not be a dismissal of the ingredients themselves. I don't understand what you mean by "dismissal". When I'm "dismissing" them it is in the context of "you don't need these to make delicious cakes competitive with the box goods." And the reason I'm dismissing is because of availability to a home cook. It's fair to point out the parent comment was talking about the fear of chemicals in the foods, not a concern I share. I was more writing in terms of whether or not you actually need these ingredients to be successful baking. I'd further say that, especially with food, there's no strict "bad/good". The ingredients are simply different. While it does impact the final outcome, you likely won't taste much difference if you used canola oil or corn oil in a recipe, for example. Does that make corn or canola bad/good? No, they are just different ingredients that accomplish the same goal. With that in mind, availability becomes a much more important thing to consider. So I can dismiss the need for xanthan gum for a home cook because I know that potato starch will fill the same role while being easy to find in the store. It's more available, not better.