Lady Tasting Brine | Hacker News Reader

Lady Tasting Brine

slimemoldtimemold.com

45 pointssurprisetalk33 comments

Not being familiar with the reference [0], I was confusing thinking that the brine was somehow supposed to... taste like a lady? Seems to me that "The Lady Tasting Brine" (or Tea, as the case may be) would be more clear.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_tasting_tea

If it's supposed to taste like a lady, there should be a hyphen: lady-tasting brine.

wouldn't that be more for a sentient brine?

This is true; fortunately, no one on the internet ever screws up punctuation.

Then, there's the em dash

lady - tasting brine

Could also be brine (shrimp) that goes around tasting ladies…

> I was confusing thinking that the brine was somehow supposed to... taste like a lady?

With apologies to Aerosmith:

    Brine tastes like a lady (That, that)
    Brine tastes like a lady (That, that)
    Brine tastes like a lady (That, that)
    Brine tastes like a lady (That, that)

    Sampled at a bar on the shore
    A scent that graced the salt on the floor
    It's a long lost love at first sip
    Baby, maybe you're wrong
    But I love every drip

I think they should taste the salts in granular form. KCl is very easy to taste the difference of, it makes a tingly feeling in your mouth that is very different than NaCl. Anyone that has tried salt substitutes like NoSalt will remember it. I’ve never tried them dissolved in water maybe it removes that feeling somewhat?

I suspect the "dry salt" used was in fact granular.

Oh you are right. I didn’t notice that the first test they did was dry. I can’t believe people couldn’t taste the difference.

There's somewhat of a lack of a tautological understanding of null-hypothesis experiments, in that what is really being tested is confined by the scope of the experiment.

What I mean is that the results of the experiment are only true for the sample population. The extrapolation of the sample population to the whole seems problematic and at the root of the ongoing replication crisis.

I realize that this interpretation throws a wrench into the empirical approaches taken by the soft sciences and that rejects an important notion that a sample can indeed be considered representative of the whole.

But I can't ignore the impact of the experimenters on these kinds of studies, be it bias or just poorly implemented methods, as well as the impact of the subjects chosen for the experiment. There's a lack of a control that is otherwise accounted for in the hard sciences.

This same group has a lot of insightful exploration into what they call "N=1" studies. I'm no expert and haven't read but a subset of their work, but my impression is that they understand the limitations quite well and believe there is still value in publishing and trying to understand research with small sample sizes.

Here's their intro article on the idea, which is only the tip of a massive iceberg: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2023/01/05/n1-introduction/

I have no problem with small sample sizes. They form the core of qualitative research. They also don't attempt to speak for broad populations as the details are lost with large sample sizes. I'd prefer if the soft sciences had more qualitative research and left most of the quantitative research to sciences that have a hard control.

Isn't the point of this to show that the subjects look like they all differ in their ability to taste, and any single individual's ability (or even an average) wouldn't generalize very well?

I'm not sure, my mind keeps wondering the answers to questions that would have been better off in interview form! "What kind of cuisine do you normally eat?" "Do you have high blood pressure and/or sodium restrictions"? "Can you describe what tastes differently between the two salts?" "How much cooking do you do?" "How would you classify your sense of smell?"

Like, maybe people who cook more have a more refined sense of taste? Maybe certain culture's cuisines lend themselves to subtle differences in salt flavor? Maybe there are physiological reasons? Psychological reasons? It seems that the focus should be on these subjective qualities.

If the hard sciences use quantitative methods that do generalize very well, shouldn't the soft sciences focus more on methods that don't generalize very well, like, case studies, etc? Then the reader can see if any of the insights apply to their own novel situations, further research, etc.

Tangential, but I sketched out a song about this a couple of years ago!

               A    G    D
  Lady tasting tea
                       A    G    D
  Let's see if she can see
                       A    G    D
  All the scientists agree
                      A    G    D
  It's a likely guarentee

True, but if you get enough people to do it repeatedly theoretically you could also model accuracy as a random variable. So then you get an overall population estimate of accuracy as well as a model of the heterogeneity among individuals.

Still, yes, with this small of a sample and minimal replication, there's issues. But they're not super serious about this scientifically, it's really for entertainment.

Taking this a step further, I think to really test the simple discernment hypothesis, they should have the tasters sort the samples into two groups without labeling. The current approach sort of assumes that not only can they distinguish between the samples, but can also identify which is which. I think those are two different, separable issues.

Where your concerns become more important for me personally are in ratings of foods etc.; I often wonder how much small cultures develop around these things and influence the ratings. It's interesting to me how much ratings can differ sometimes, and I suspect it's related to what you're mentioning.

I supplement with small amounts of KCl so I have it handy and the taste is still salty, but it’s considerably more metallic on the tongue. It’s harder to notice dissolved in something else.

Same

Reminds me of this insane video (tasting chloride salts of Lithium, Sodium, Potassium, Rubidium, and Caesium): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJh9yTIBY48

FWIW no one has ever noticed my use of 50% NaCl/50% KCl mixture ("Lite Salt") in place of NaCl. I think when you actually put that mixture on food it would be almost impossible to notice the difference.

> FWIW no one has ever noticed my use of 50% NaCl/50% KCl mixture ("Lite Salt") in place of NaCl.

Hopefully you've mentioned this when you've done it. This can be very very damaging and dangerous for some people.

See: Anybody with renal impairment.

Yes, or also people on certain common medications, including some used to treat high blood pressure or immune disorders.

Yes I do always mention this before serving food I make with it to someone new. They just haven't been able to taste a difference.

What’s the reason for lite salt and tricking people to eat it and see if they notice? Is it meant to be better for you or something?

Mostly just because of how it's used, most people can't tell the difference. And it's less sodium, which is generally considered healthier.

That "generally considered" is one of the interesting assumptions I've seen being questioned lately. Prior to refrigeration salt was a major dietary factor and there's some evidence sodium intake was higher for centuries in the past than modern foods (that the overuse of salt in fast foods and processed foods is almost a correction back towards pre-refrigeration "norms").

Food science is wild and "generally considered" pop food science is wilder still.

Oh absolutely.

I think that's really the most fascinating part about it.

We know scientifically that reducing sodium intake, for a number of people, can reduce blood pressure, which is a positive outcome.

But that's a single factor and observation in a what amounts to a tiny sized bottle.

For as many people that benefit from limiting sodium intake, there are many many many more that can eat as much sodium as they want and it doesn't matter.

To your point of "pop" food science, or just food science in general, the fact is we still largely have solved symptoms instead of causes, in what amounts to "titrations", makes it all very hard to predict.

Yes its supposed to be better for you. Too much sodium causes hight blood pressure.

I use lite salt to make my own electrolyte mix, for when I'm exercising outdoors in the summer for 3-8 hours at a time. I add lemonade powder for flavor, and whatever amount of carbohydrates I need.

Most people eat a sodium heavy (3g+) and potassium light diet(1g-). However your body really wants a potassium heavy(3g+) and sodium moderate diet (.75g).

You normally accomplish this by eating less junk and more fruits + vegetables. But putting potassium salt on your junk food is better than nothing.

It is meant to be better for a family member who has hypertension. It is probably also good for most people in the western world because our diets tend to be high in sodium and low in potassium.

I absolutely don't trick anyone. I tell people I'm using KCl and I check with them to make sure it's safe for them. I've also asked them if they can taste a difference vs. NaCl and everyone has said no.

I believe KCl is sold specifically as a salt alternative for people who need to eat a low-sodium diet.

Yes, I use it because I cook for my family and one of my family members needs to eat a low sodium diet. It is easier to use the same thing for everybody and unless you have a specific medical condition there's nothing wrong with eating some KCl.

This seems fun. An enjoyable variant may be to not describe how many of each variety there are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com