Why would I have to search for citations if I had any in mind originally? I simply said I would do some searching.
I will look for some specific citations. Its been awhile.
You answered your own question. Specific
citations would be ones you had in mind (that's what makes them specific rather than randomly found), and you would have to search for them because it has been a while since you've seen them. Otherwise what, it's been a while since you pretended to see them?
You seem to want to make much of the distinction between taste and smell.
You made the distinction first, not me. I didn't call attention to your error until after you failed to provide what you said you would. It's not that I'm making much of the distinction. It's that I'm making much of the lack of documented evidence on your part. If you make a claim such as the one you did, then report you'll find a specific citation and don't, it's kind of hard to swallow anything else you say. If you kept it as an opinion and stopped defending it as a fact, we wouldn't be where we are.
Then there is this study which says. Well I'll let you read it...
Yes, I don't have to read far because it's an article I've read before. Some people believe fat has flavor. Okay. If it does then I'm drinking from the wrong bottle, but I won't argue with those reports because it's not germane to this discussion. In any case, what does that have to do with fat's ability to enhance
other flavors? Not one statement within that article addresses flavor enhancement. Sugar and salt have flavor too, but their role in enhancing other flavors is well accepted.
As for my previous citation. Last time I checked pizza sauce is an emulsion. Even your sauce has some fat in it even if in tiny amounts.
"No main effects of emulsion type occurred for taste intensity or slope of the tastant concentration - intensity relationships" This study found no relationship between emulsions of different concentrations and taste intensity. Are you arguing that even the tiniest amount of oil destroys the flavor and then adding even more oil doesn't destroy more flavor?
You are beating this into the ground without a clear understanding of its basis. They are comparing the difference between water-in-oil and oil-in-water emulsions. They take a 50% water-in-oil emulsion and a 50% oil-in-water emulsion and try to determine if there is a difference in flavor and viscosity between the two. They are NOT comparing the flavor of an oil-in-water emulsion to the flavor of a water only solution which would be the analog of our subject at hand. No, I'm not suggesting that a tiny amount of oil destroys any flavor. There is already a tiny amount of fat in tomato to begin with. You aren't really reading what I'm writing if you believe that. I even stated that there were exceptions to the rule where fat does enhance flavor, but for whatever reason you choose to ignore that now. This discussion is about whether it's a broadly accepted fact fat intensifies
other flavors as you put it. Furthermore, if you truly believed this article was relevant (which it isn't), it would go to disprove your assertion that fat intensifies
other flavors, since it stated there were NO flavor differences between the samples. Are you sure you want to keep citing this article?
It seems to me that you would have us believe that
bacon would taste better without the fat,
peanut butter would taste better without the oil,
croissants would taste better without butter,
cheese would taste better without milk fat,
lean steak tastes better than marbled,
salmon would taste better without fat,
ice cream tastes better than ice milk.
We all know for our experience with "Fat Free" products over the years that they do not have more flavor.
Firstly, you're wandering into the territory of, "Does fat have flavor?" Regardless of that conclusion, you're also talking about the level to which one feels sated with the food they've eaten. Fat has always been known to satisfy. It's a primal thing related to survival. If you look carefully at your list though, you'll notice that only one item is primarily composed of water, and that item is a known exception to the rule. Ice cream contains vanilla which fat has been shown to enhance the flavor of. Not to mention fat's ability to provide a notable mouthfeel to the ice cream's creamy texture. Fat will certainly carry flavor as water does, just not as well as water does, which is the point of contention. This should be intuitive as water and oil don't mix under normal circumstances, and both the mucus in our nasal passages and saliva in our mouths are water based.
I could come up with a list too, and it would look a lot like yours except that it would compare moist food to dry food. As one would expect, moist food seems to win most of the time. So fat isn't any more special than water when it comes to this type of comparison.
I believe McGee is where I originally read this.
So you did have something in mind. Thanks for wasting my time explaining you did, then you didn't. Also, thank you for providing yet another reference on my behalf. What is stated in that book is nearly identical to the article I cited. From your reference: "Oils and fats dissolve more aroma molecules than water during cooking, but also hang on to them during eating, so that their flavor appears more gradually and persists longer.
" This is the antithesis of intensity. The flavor lasts longer. It isn't more intense. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
From my perspective, I take care of the extraction using MAE, so the condition that oil dissolves more molecules doesn't fully apply. What's relevant is the clear evidence oil traps flavor molecules so that they are released more slowly, thereby lowering their intensity. That's what Raoult's law would demonstrate.
And Raolt's Law in no way demonstrates that more volatile compounds reach your sniffer than otherwise.
I'm sorry that went past your nose and over your head.