Chapter 8
Food Texture Characteristics –
Fattiness, Cooking Method,
Protein, and Body
Chapter 8 Outline
• Aperitif: Canoe
Restaurant & Bar
• Textures in Food
• Fattiness in Food
• Cooking Method
and Protein
Interactions
• Overall Food Body
Wine and Food
Texture
Interactions
Chapter 8 Key Concepts
•Food texture sensations
•The impact of animal or vegetable fats
and oils
•Light-to-light and rich-to-rich
matching
How is Food Texture Traditionally
Defined?
• A standard scientific definition of texture is
“the arrangement of the particles or
constituent parts of a material that gives it its
characteristic structure”.
• The following sensations can be identified as
part of food texture and tactile
sense: smoothness, stickiness, graininess,
fibrousness, and consistency.
Food Texture Considerations
• Whether light, medium, or full-bodied
depends on a number of factors.
• Primary elements: fat level, cooking method,
and an overall feeling of body.
• The above texture elements interact to impact
the perception of the body, power, or weight
of a particular dish.
• Texture preferences are somewhat driven by
cultural and personal differences.
Fattiness in Food
• Fats can be separated into numerous
categories: saturated/unsaturated, fats/oils,
invisible/visible, vegetable/animal, etc.
• When considering pairing, it is important to
establish whether a fat is natural or an added
textural element.
• Natural fats are found in foods like: dairy
products, meats, seeds, and nuts.
Fattiness in Food (2)
• Added fats are found in: oils, shortenings, lard,
butter, and margarine, and used for flavoring
and mouth-feel.
• The main objective of assessing fattiness in
food from a texture perspective is determining
mouth-feel characteristics such as
smoothness, richness, and moistness.
• Generally, a richer, fatter dish will require a
richer, more full-bodied wine to compliment
it.
What Impact does Cooking Method and
Protein Type Have on Texture
Sensations?
• Poaching or steaming maintains a light
texture.
• Frying or grilling provides additional texture.
• A lighter protein prepared using a more robust
cooking method will create a more powerful
texture to supersede the texture of proteins in
the higher body levels based on protein type
alone.
Protein
Cooking Method
Anticipated
Body Levels
Ascending Levels of Body in Proteins and Cooking Methods
Moist
Protein
Dry
White
Fish
Poached,
Steamed
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
Very Light
Chicken
Poached,
Steamed
Grilled
White Fish
Light
Veal
Stewed,
Braised
Grilled, PanSeared
Chicken
Light to Moderate
Pan-fried, Grilled,
Fried
Veal
Moderate
Roasted
Game Birds
Moderate to Full
Game
Birds
Braised
Pork
Stewed,
Braised
Beef
Stewed
Roasted, Grilled
Pork
Full
Lamb
Stewed,
Braised
Roasted, Grilled
Beef
Robust
Venison,
Elk
Stewed,
Braised
Roasted, Grilled
Lamb
Powerful
Grilled,
Venison, Elk
Very Powerful
Cooking Methods and Protein
Interactions
• The cooking method employed in the creation
of dishes has a significant impact on the
texture of the finished product.
• These methods impact the fat content
retained, the protein, and the collagen
structure of the of the final dish.
Moist vs. Dry Methods
• Moist heat cooking methods: are those
where heat is conducted to the food item by a
liquid and include: steaming, boiling, and
braising.
• Dry heat methods: are those where heat is
conducted to the food item by: hot air
(roasting, baking), hot metal (grilling,
blackening), radiation (broiling), and hot fat
(stir-frying, sauté, pan-frying, deep-frying).
Overall Body
• The overall food body is based on a person’s
perception of the overall power or body of the
prepared dish.
• The following factors are considered: protein type, fat
level, cooking method used, what the item is served
with, and basically the range of texture factors that
provide a feeling of weight or structure throughout
the mouth.
• The most basic assessment of food body is based on a
continuum from light to very rich.
• The type of food item and temperature at which it is
served impact the perception of its food body.
Light to Rich Pairing Implications
Rich
Take care to
ensure the rich
food does not
overpower the
light wine
Usually reliable
unless the
combination is
too rich
Always a
reliable
combination
Take care to
ensure the rich
wine does not
overpower the
light food
Light
Rich
Food
Light
Wine
What Wine Elements Interact with
Food Fattiness and Body?
• Wine tannin levels,
• alcohol levels,
• the presence and level of oak,
• and overall body all have a strong relationship
with food fattiness.
Chapter 8
Lagniappe
“Something extra”
Body and Texture Matches in Food and
Wine
Results from Exercise 8.2
The old adage of “white wine
with fish and red wine with meat”
• Based on perceived texture and body
rather than color.
• The following findings are based on
perceptions of an earlier class using
Exercise 8.2 in Chapter 8.
• Your perceptions may vary based on
wine selections and food item
preparation.
Textures in Wine
• A variety of terms and techniques to assess the
level of texture in wine.
• ‘Mouth-feel’ wheel. Characteristics included:
–
–
–
–
surface smoothness,
drying sensations,
dynamic elements,
weight, complexity and ripeness.
• Too complex for even experienced wine
judges.
Primary Wine Texture Elements
• Tannin level
• Level of alcohol
• Presence and level of oak
• Overall feeling of body
Issues:
• High level of correlation among these elements
• Study focus - tannin and overall body
Definitions – Wine Texture
• Tannin level:
– Defining factor on the smooth (soft) to rough
(hard) continuum.
– Create tactile sensations of dryness, puckeriness
and astringency.
• Body:
– The consistency or viscosity of wine. An
impression of weight, size and volume.
– Influenced primarily by the presence of alcohol.
•Also, the presence of sugars, glycerol and tannins in
wine.
Textures in Food
• Whether a food item is light, medium or
full-bodied depends on a number of
factors.
• Primary considerations include:
– Type of protein
– Fat level in the protein or additional plate
elements (natural or added)
– The cooking method employed
– Overall feeling of body across all of the food
dish elements.
Table 1: Mean Level of Match and Standard Deviations
Mean
(n = 24)
across all
food
items
Wine
Type
Wine
No.
Wine
Wine
Producer
Chicken
en
Papillote
Grilled
Pork
Loin
Braised
Beef
White
A
Riesling,
Dry
Bonny
Doon, NV
5.73
(2.08)
5.88
(1.81)
5.01
(1.48)
5.54
(1.77)
Red
B
Pinot
Noir
Gallo of
Sonoma,
2003
5.00
(.93)
7.19
(1.73)
6.31
(2.73)
6.17
(1.93)
Red
C
Merlot
Clos du
Bois,
2001
3.63
(1.30)
7.06
(1.15)
6.25
(2.60)
5.65
(2.29)
Red
D
Cabernet
Sauvignon
J. Lohr,
2002
2.50
(.76)
6.13
(1.64)
6.00
(2.27)
4.88
(2.35)
4.21
(1.81)
6.56
(1.63)
5.89
(2.18)
5.56
(2.11)
Across
Wines
Table 1 Explained
• Provides the mean level of match determined by a
group of 8 students.
• The standard deviation is in parentheses under each
mean value and provides on indication of agreement
on match (a low s.d. indicates strong agreement).
• Each row is a type of wine (Riesling, Pinot, Merlot
and Cabernet Sauvignon). The bottom row is the
mean for all wines.
• Each food item column (chicken, pork and beef)
provides the average level of match with each wine.
What do the mean levels of match
indicate?
•Riesling provided a neutral match for
across all three proteins. But, with much
disagreement among students (standard
deviation [s.d.] is relatively high).
•The Pinot provided a neutral match with
the chicken and a good match with the
pork and beef. But, with substantial
disagreement for the beef dish in
particular.
What do the mean levels of match
indicate (2) ?
• The Merlot had a good match with the pork
and beef. The match with the chicken dropped
to a refreshment level. There was substantial
disagreement in match level with the beef
dish.
• The Cabernet Sauvignon had a neutral to good
match with the pork and beef dishes. The
match with the chicken dish was the lowest of
all wines.
What does this indicate overall?
• The pork dish was perceived as the most
wine-friendly at this tasting.
• The Pinot Noir was perceived as the most
versatile to serve with this selection of food
dishes.
• The braised beef dish lacked consensus on
level of match. This may be due to the
“bridging” technique of cooking with wine.
FIGURE 1: Mean Deviation-From-Body Match for Food Items with 4 Wines
4
Food Dominates
3
Chicken
2
Grilled Pork
Braised Beef
1
A
B
C
D
0
B
C
D
A
D
A
B
C
-1
-2
-3
Wine Dominates
-4
A = Riesling
B = Pinot Noir
C = Merlot
D = Cabernet Sauvignon
Figure 1 Explained
•Figure 1 was created based on resulting of
a mixed tasting using figure 8.6 from
Chapter 8.
•If the food body dominated, the bar is
above the line (a positive value).
•If the wine body dominated, the bar is
below the line (a negative value).
Deviation from Body-to-Body Match:
Chicken
•The Riesling and Chicken en Papillote
had the closest body match and was
perceived as nearly equal.
•Pinto Noir was perceived as the next
closest.
•The Merlot and Cabernet clearly
dominated this relationship.
Deviation from Body-to-Body Match:
Pork
•Pinot Noir had the closest match with
the grilled pork followed closely by the
Merlot.
•The Riesling and Cabernet were clearer
not a close body match with the grilled
pork.
Deviation from Body-to-Body Match:
Braised Beef
• The Merlot had the closest body match with
this dish.
• The Cabernet Sauvignon slightly dominated
the relationship.
• The beef slightly dominated the Pinto Noir
and completely overpowered the chicken dish.
So What!
•Table 1 and Figure 1 point out the strong
relationship between evaluators
perception of match and deviations from
body-to-body match in wine and food.
•Supports the notion of pleasant
sensations through a matching
perspective.
Additional Reading
Harrington, R.J. & Hammond, R. (2007) Body
Deviation-from-match: The Yin and Yang of
Wine and Food Pairing? Journal of Culinary
Science & Technology.
King, M.C., Cliff, M.A. & Hall, J. (2003). Effectiveness
of the ‘mouth-feel’ wheel’ for the evaluation of
astringent subqualities in British Columbia
red wines. Journal of Wine Research, 14(2-3), 6778.