Gastrophysics: The New Science of Eating

by Charles Spence

The science behind a good meal: all the sounds, sights, and tastes that make us like what we're eating and want to eat more.
Why do we consume 35 percent more food when eating with one other person, and 75 percent more when dining with three? How do we explain the fact that people who like strong coffee drink more of it under bright lighting? And why does green ketchup just not work?
The answer is gastrophysics, the new area of sensory science pioneered by Oxford professor Charles Spence. Now he's stepping out of his lab to lift the lid on the entire eating experience how the taste, the aroma, and our overall enjoyment of food are influenced by all of our senses, as well as by our mood and expectations.
The pleasures of food lie mostly in the mind, not in the mouth. Get that straight and you can start to understand what really makes food enjoyable, stimulating, and, most important, memorable. Spence reveals in amusing detail the importance of all the off the plate elements of a meal: the weight of cutlery, the color of the plate, the background music, and much more. Whether we re dining alone or at a dinner party, on a plane or in front of the TV, he reveals how to understand what we re tasting and influence what others experience.
This is accessible science at its best, fascinating to anyone in possession of an appetite. Crammed with discoveries about our everyday sensory lives, Gastrophysics is a book guaranteed to make you look at your plate in a whole new way."

Genres: Nonfiction, Food, Science, Cookbooks, Psychology, Cooking, Health

Audiobook

First published March 22, 2017

About the author

Prof. Charles Spence is an experimental psychologist at the University of Oxford. He is the head of the Crossmodal Research group which specializes in the research about the integration of information across different sensory modalities.

Reviews

[Petra X · Rating 5 out of 5]

There was a restaurant used by 'suits' that is businessmen at lunchtime with big expense accounts. The business was not increasing. The owners searched around to find what was wrong and eventually decided it was the atmosphere, it was businesslike, gloomy, a place you would go to eat because the food was good and it was suitable, but not to go for sheer enjoyment.

Their solution was extremely creative. After ordering from the menu, the tables were cleared except for some rather silly porcelain cow pepper and salt shakers. Before long, a customer picked one up and turned it over, as one does, and it mooed loudly. So did the other shaker. Soon all the customers were picking up their condiment cows and the place was full of moos and laughter. At that precise moment the appetizer was served. The whole atmosphere of the place had changed.

Gastrophysics is the study of factors that influence the experience of eating and drinking and can be heavily exploited for marketing purposes. Does the food taste different because it is a small amount beautifully arranged on a huge black plate with heavy cutlery and was written about in menu that was bound in leather whilst very softly, there was some laid-back jazz music playing? What about if it was heavy metal playing loudly and the same food was dumped on cheap white plates with light aluminium cutlery and the menu had been a photocopied piece of paper, a bit dog-eared from previous customers? Of course it would taste different because it is different senses being pleasantly stimulated. You might even prefer it, that wouldn't be unusual. But you wouldn't pay as much, that's for sure.

Heston Blumenthal with his extremely expensive, book-six-months-ahead restaurants is a master of gastrophysics. One of his desserts, a meringue-based item, floats due to various magnetic forces, it's entrancing, you pay him a lot for that experience. That experience is so unusual it gets him massive publicity, reviews and reality cooking shows, everyone wants to eat food like this. Heston increases not only his reputation and his fees for appearances, but also the market experiences in food that have nothing to do with taste.

Clever isn't it?

MacDonalds will never make anything look other than extremely cheap, cheerful and basic, because if they did, you might think you'd have to pay more. It's cheap, cheerful and "the" brand name in chain restaurants they live on, the quality of their food doesn't even come in to the equation.

"Psychophysicists like to treat the human observer much like a machine." They study every aspect of the eating/drinking experience, but not so much the food!

[Aria · Rating 1 out of 5]

---- Disclosure: I received this book for free from Goodreads. ----

This book is sold on a lie. There is no new information in here, and this is not a new area of science. Everything in here is known by dietitians, people who study food and all that relates to it. As you might imagine, that encompasses quite a wide range of information. It certainly encompasses all that was included in this book. Furthermore, for something that the author attempts to claim is more or less a new focus, he sure does reference a books worth of old information. He is obsessed with Italian futurists from the 1930s, and near the beginning of the book references as far back as the late 1800s. That doesn't sound new at all to me. Sounds like something that has been going on quite a long time, as it should. Food and how we approach and experience it has long been a crucial focal point of the human experience. This fact has not gone on unnoticed, despite the author's attempts to convince us he has stumbled on to something new.

My second point of derision with this false promotion is the b.s. name he has made up for himself. He deigns to call himself a gastro-physicist. Insert hard eye-roll here. This self-applied label seems to infer the physics of the gut. Nope. Readers, just as this is not a new science, there are also no physics herein. Strike that wholly from any ideas you might gain from reading the cover title. The author attempts to explain why he chose this ridiculously inappropriate title for himself by describing what he is actually trained in, being the psychological elements of people and their physical spaces, surroundings, and general interactions with the physical world. I accept that as being a real thing. However, in conjuring a new title to impose on himself, he has decided he will not use the "psych" part of his applicable title, but will instead keep the "physics" part. Herein lies the rub. I suspect the author passed over "psych" for "physics" not because he deemed it less appropriate, but b/c of the differing public perception each of those words holds. In what seems to me a transparent move he has not even included the use of his professional abbreviations following his name on the book. So, instead of being more forthright with his subject being about the psychological dimensions of food consumption, he completely dropped that pre-fix, but kept the wholly inappropriately utilization of "physics." It's b.s. There is no way an Oxford professor did not know that this was misleading and sketchy as all hell.

Those are personally my biggest problems with this book. It's presentation is just shady as all get-out, and I can't help but wonder if this is what the "publish or die" mentality of the academic world has led us into. As far as the information presented, it is nothing new. This is more or less a collection of already available information put into a volume and sold. This is the literary equivalent of a type of meta-analytical overview of a segment of the world of human food (that dietitian's already study, complete with professional journals and organizations and the like), minus the final sifting through of the data and statistical overview. As such, there is nothing wrong with pulling this information into a singular volume and presenting it to the lay public, with a hard lean toward restaurateurs and those who sell pre-packaged foods. That could have been done in an honest and interesting way w/o toying with the readers trust and mislabeling what already exists. It could have been done without claiming newness of a field that has exited as long as the science of food and human consumption has existed, and already has an entire field of educated professionals dedicated to its study.

I feel like it should be made clear that what this book does not deal with, despite the author's psychological background, are eating disorders and unhealthy personal relationships with food. The only exception to that would be a few references toward how some of these larger ideas impact toward the many factors involved in 1st-world lifestyle-influenced obesity. They are almost off-hand remarks, and obesity itself is not a topic discussed per se, but the statements do exist in the text.

As for how the book reads, it's pretty dull. The writing is not bad, but it's not good. The author comes off as arrogant, and if one has any previous knowledge of food matters, his level of expertise in this arena is sadly just crap. I can not understand what in the world possessed him to put his name to this. As I stated previously, this is primarily a gathering almost entirely of other people's work, presented as if he himself had something new here. That said, a reader will repeatedly be told about the author's lab, the parties he has in it for "research," and the big name, multi-national junk food corporations his work benefits. I was left with the impression that book was intended to boost the image of the author in this moneyed arena, and increase his leverage, name recognition, and b.s. status. It's a big sell for his image, and my final conclusion, in so many words, is that I declare shenanigans.

I came away with from this book having learned nothing new. I do, however, question what has happened to Oxford to have allowed such an obvious intellectual-poser to be the public product of their formerly reputable university. It kind of makes me sad. Despite appearances, money isn't everything, guys. Once you lose your good standing you're done.

[Monika · Rating 1 out of 5]

When the author is this pompous, and his writing style is this annoying, it is hard to enjoy a book, no matter what other merits there might be. To illustrate my point, I have attempted to write my own excerpt of Spence's book as he would have done;

While there are some interesting points in this book (for example, red plates make a person eat less!! My goodness!!) it was filled with much superfluous and repetitive and unwelcome crap that only a restauranteur would find interesting. Actually, I think you'll find only some will find it interesting. Have I mentioned Heston Blumental? When he invited me (the author) to the Fat Duck in 2008 I found aromas from the kitchen wafted into my very large and very sensitive nostrils (don't tell me you're not impressed).

Anyway, Heston (have I mentioned him? I don't think I've mentioned him) told me that I should write a book and then I proceded to shovel some scented gravel into my mouth. My life has not been the same since.

Of course, you too can recreate this magic at home. I know that you're absolutely dying to. Aren't you absolutely dying to? Aren't you wondering how I knew that? Well. Fear not. For you can so very easily recreate this experience at a fraction of the price by dousing your own front-drive-gravel (who would have thought it?!) in men's cologne and sucking it (just be sure not to suck for more than 20 seconds or else you might become light headed!!! Oh I am giddy with excitement. (More punctuation needed!!! (MORE PARENTHESIS NEEDED))). Even Heston told me that he was scared I was giving away trade secrets. My wife gave me a slap on the wrist! Goodness me.

Did I mention Heston Blumenthal?

[Cynthia Shannon · Rating 4 out of 5]

I totally enjoyed geeking out with this book. I even had someone on a flight ask me if I'm a chef ("well, no sir, just a home chef...") because I was reading this book. Some lessons I picked up: surprise people with something unexpected at the start of the meal; when you have a zillion courses, focus on the first and the last because that's what people will most likely remember; play appropriate music (Italian music with Italian food) to make it more authentic; eat food with your hands whenever possible; tell people the vegetables are organic; there is such a thing as blue wine; hang up menus from good restaurants you visited; personalize the experience where you can.

Definitely more for someone who is really into food than the average bear, and there were some very British quips throughout; the last two chapters were kind of boring, but overall a really fun read if you're into psychology and gastronomy.

[Holly · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was halfway into this when I realized that its intended audiences is chefs and restauranteurs, as much or more than the general reader-eater, and Spence is sharing all kinds of behavioral tricks learned from gastronomics research on how to enhance a dining experience (and not necessarily about the taste of the food). While that was not uninteresting, some of it was common or trivial information I would have been a little bored with reading in a printed book. But the English gentleman who reads the audiobook (John Sackville) reads this as if he's sharing a secret with the readers - in a kind of whispery, exhilarated tone of voice - that kept me entertained.

[Kitty · Rating 1 out of 5]

tähendab. ma saan aru, et "gastrofüüsika" on lahe sõnaleid ja kui ma oleks selle peale ise tulnud, oleks ka kindlasti tahtnud sellise pealkirjaga raamatu kirjutada. paraku minu puhul oleks see hea idee jäänud selle taha, et mul poleks olnud midagi öelda millegi kohta, mida võiks umbeski gastrofüüsikaks kutsuda. Charles Spence pole end aga sellisest pisiasjast häirida lasknud.

lihtsalt... sel raamatul ei ole füüsikaga pistmist mitte kõigevähematki. gastronoomia ehk toiduga, jah, aga põhiliselt on siin tegu kergekaalulisemate psühholoogiaalaste uurimuste ja leidude kirjeldamisega (a la et pakendi kujundus ja värv mõjutab seda, kuidas me maitset tajume, ja et punase-valgeruuduliselt laudlinalt söödud pizza maitseb itaaliapärasemalt... või et palju menüüs toite võiks olla ja kui pikad nende nimed, et klient tunneks, et on oma raha eest maksimaalselt süüa saanud). väga õrnalt puudutatakse midagi, mida võiks ehk kutsuda gastrofüsioloogiaks - lõhn ja maitse, kuidas me neid tajume ja kuidas nad seotud on. see osa jääb kahjuks põhikooli bioloogiatunni tasemele.

kuna autor rõhutab korduvalt, kui oluline on suhe sööja ootuste ja selle vahel, mis ta tegelikult saab, siis ta kindlasti mõistaks, et kui mulle lubatakse füüsikaraamatut ja seal ei leidu bittigi füüsikat, siis ma olen nördinud.

ma ei usu, et ma oleks siit ka psühholoogia kohta midagi uut teada saanud. või üldse midagi uut peale selle, milliste staarkokkadega autorile enim hängida meeldib ja kui lahe töö tal on, sest saab laboris pidulikke õhtusööke korraldada. arvamusi puistati väga lahke käega, korralikke fakte oli vähe ja... ma ei osta neid väiteid, et kogu seda imelist psühholoogiat hakkavad suurkorporatsioonid iga hetk kasutama selleks, et meid salaja tervislikumalt toitma hakata. jaa, ma saan aru, et nad rahastavad su laborit ja maksavad su restoraniarved, aga... ei.

[Emma · Rating 1 out of 5]

[DNF at 77%]

This was such a huge disappointment! On paper, this book should have been right up my alley: food, science, flavor and psychology all wrapped up into one. In reality however, I thought it was absolutely horrible.

The book is just plain boring! Reading it felt like reading multiple essays that had no real connection with each other / storyline that connected them, which made the book incoherent and hard to follow. In my opinion, even non-fiction books like this one should have a storyline or logical order to their chapters, and this book just did not have that.

Furthermore, I got VERY tired of reading on and on about Heston Blumenthal this, and his restaurant The Fat Duck that. We get it, Charles. You are a super cool guy who is friends with numerous Michelin-star chefs. Now please cut the BS and give us some interesting (pop)science instead of anecdotes about famous restaurants and the “experiments” you performed there.

Also, can we please talk about the fact that physics has nothing to do with the science that is talked about in this book?! Sensory science is the accurate term for this field, so please don’t make it seem more impressive by calling it gastrophysics.

All in all, I gave this book my best shot by picking it up multiple times between November 2017 (when it first came out) and now, but it is just not worth my or anyone else’s time.

[Glen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I won an ARC of this book in a goodreads drawing.

Great book that tells us just how much goes into the sense of taste. All of your senses, even ones you may not think you have go into how a food will taste once it gets into your mouth. Your utensils, your plate, the music, the light, all go into it.

I learned a lot, and enjoyed doing it.

[Am Y · Rating 1 out of 5]

Can you believe researchers were paid to conduct a study in which they found that the sound a potato chip produces when it is broken into two affects how fresh people perceive it to be? The experiment was nicknamed the "Sonic Chip" and its abstract can be found here. Even more astounding - said study won its creator the Ig Nobel Prize for nutrition in 2008! Read about it here.

This is just one of the studies cited in this book, which is full of other "research" and pseudo-science telling us things most of us with even an ounce of common sense would already know, like how smell, sound, visuals, etc can potentially affect our perception of the foods we consume.

The book title makes it sound like it's a whole new revolutionary field of hard science with groundbreaking revelations about food consumption and how it might affect us humans. I hate to break it to you, but it isn't . I was fooled. Don't let that be you.

This book reminds me of precisely why I chose NOT to do my postgrad in Psychology 17 years ago, having completed my Bachelor's in it and realising that there's a good reason why Psychology is classified as a soft/social science as opposed to an "actual" science. The last thing we need is for pseudo-researchers to be wasting more time and money researching useless stuff in the name of pseudo-science - and generating personal income for it!

[Bryan · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is one of the worst books on food I’ve ever read. In fact it’s one of the worst books I’ve read on any subject. Everything in it is a regurgitation of the blindingly obvious, and reports on research that discovers what everyone has known for years. He seems amazed that there are connections between the senses. That we are affected by what we see on our plates as well as how it tastes. He even invents a new piece of jargon for it - crossmodal and multisensory science. It’s just the introduction, and already we're into Spinal Tap territory. I bet his taste buds go up to 11. Has he never heard anyone say their food looks good? Hasn’t he watched the care cooks take to make their food look good? I trained as a cook and one of the first things I was taught is that we eat with our eyes. What a heap of pretentious twaddle this is.

Fortunately I don’t regret paying for this book. It came from a charity shop, so at least the money went to a good cause. I nominate it for the IgBooker Prize, if such a thing exists.

[Rachel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Consider this a 101 level, not for those looking for a deep dive into the science at play. As an American reader I sometimes felt a disconect with UK eating culture, which is the trough touchstone Spence uses, although other cultures are used often. I also had to question the author's cultual bias multiple times while reading (NYC chefs magically caused noisy restaurants the world over? And you're not going to cite specifics, sure...)

I would have liked more on the lesser considered elements of food, like sound, touch, and public v private and perhaps scrapped other sections entirely, particularily the section on social dining.

Overal I liked it, but won't be pulling it off my self again.

[Zach Scoffield · Rating 2 out of 5]

Spence could have condensed the useful info in this book into a 20 page white paper. While the first half of the book cited some interesting studies and anecdotes, the second half was just him speculating on a random assortment of topics.

[Sarah W. · Rating 3 out of 5]

As someone who loves food, this book made for interesting reading - I particularly found the sections about memory and taste fascinating. That being said, I will likely never eat in the type of restaurant this author clearly frequents and hence some of the examples given felt outlandish and divorced from my own experiences with food and eating out. Overall, it was an interesting investigation of how we currently eat, but not one I could relate to completely.

[Julie Brochmann · Rating 1 out of 5]

ok, yes, jeg har lært meget, så informativ, det er den. however, forfatter is an absolute tool:
1. troede det handlede om gastrointestinal fysiologi, and this bitch got tarmproblemer (hot girls only) så imagine my disappointment da jeg opdager med det samme at det handler om noget helt andet. jeg burde have stoppet med at læse asap. mistake #1.
2. starter ud med at fortælle, at "gastrophysics" er et ord, han har opfundet til sit felt, der handler om hvordan menneskers hjerner og sanser interagerer med mad og oplevelsen deraf. indrømmer, at der ikke er noget hverken "physics" eller "physiological" over det, men han gider ikke kalde det noget med psykologi, fordi det ikke er sejt og ikke er videnskab, selvom alle metoder og former for dataindsamling er baseret på neuropsykologi, kognitiv psykologi og selvanmeldte spørgeskemaer. as i said, absolute tool.

[Annie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really interesting, somewhat niche book that will make you rethink how you experience and enjoy food -- and what subtle factors might be dramatically affecting your experience without your awareness.

This book was written pre-Covid (2017), and it's a perfect example of how dramatically the world has been divided into two eras - not BC and AD, but instead, BC and AC - Before Covid and After Covid. For instance, in the chapter on Social Dining, the author digs into the (then-new and revolutionary) idea of "telematic dinner parties" - dining together on a video call.

The author opines, "I could, just possible, imagine this kind of technological solution having value in extreme circumstances, for someone on a long space mission to Mars, say, who wants to reconnect to their family back on planet Earth. However, stuck down here on the ground, I really can't work up any enthusiasm for the telematic dinner party concept."

Ah, the innocence! The naivete! Just wait, oh, about 3 years, Professor Spence - you will find yourself, and everyone else, on Mars!

My personal favourite fun facts from this book:

--- There are no taste buds in the middle of the tongue.

--- Tasting bitter foods leads to increased hostility. Tasting sweet foods makes you feel more romantic, and increases the likelihood you'll go on a date if asked (which perhaps validates the prevalence of sweet foods on Valentine's Day!).

--- Eating food in round shapes makes you rate the food as tasting sweeter. Same for when it's eaten off a round plate instead of an angular one.

--- Likewise, when eating at a round table, people rate themselves as having a greater sense of belonging with their fellow diners; contrariwise, when seated at an angular table, people exhibit higher degrees of selfishness.

--- At a restaurant, the person at the table who orders first generally tend to enjoy their food more than people who order later.

--- Eating together is the original social network - eating together triggers endorphins which play a major role in social bonding.

--- Your other senses besides taste greatly affect your experience of food. For instance, Pavarotti's Nessun Dorma was found to increase the taste of Italian food. Nina Simone's Feeling Good and Frank Sinatra's One for My Baby were found to increase the experience of all food.

--- The reason so many people drink tomato juice on airplanes, when they virtually never order it elsewhere, is probably connected to the fact that umami flavour tastes stronger when you're exposed to sound in the 80-85 decibel range - the same background noise range of jet engines that air passengers are exposed to - while perception of sweet tastes are suppressed in this range. Tomato juice is rich in umami - most of the other drink offerings (sodas, fruit juices) are low in umami and high in sweetness.

--- Most people only remember the first few mouthfuls of a dish. Even if you swap out the dish for another with a completely different flavour profile, many people don't even notice the change. So if you want to really enjoy your meal - pay special attention to those first few bites!

--- Ramping up the olfactory component of a dish, without changing anything else, reduces food consumption by 10% - a perhaps useful tidbit for the companies looking for ways of increasing satiety sooner by stimulating our senses more effectively.

[Julie Hudson · Rating 3 out of 5]

God what an annoying book. Far too many unnecessary exclamation marks. I have seen some reviewers complaining that nearly a third of the book was taken up with references whereas I was quite relieved. I liked the science stuff and now want to open my own restaurant with all the interesting tips I've learned - it seems you actually don't really remember the taste of what you eat, you remember the experience. However, I won't be wafting aromas around and getting people to touch cloths whilst eating as that all sounds like a load of codswallop (I wonder if you should serve codswallop on a round plate or square).

Also, I'd like to pull Prof Spence up on his fight picking with Daniel Kahnemann (how very dare he). He challenges an article that was produced in the NY Times that was entitled sandwiches taste better when someone else makes them as he says there is proof that food tastes better if you've made it yourself. The actual article written by DK says that you don't get as hungry if you've made it yourself and makes no mention of whether the sandwiches taste better. A poorly titled article yes but I doubt DK chose it himself.

And finally what a load of nonsense and I hope it was said in jest that we like foods that are similar to our names. His favourite food is SPiCy, and particularly CHilLi, both of which have 3 letters in common with Charles Spence. Come on.

Signing out Julie Hudson who's favourite food isn't Jelly Haddocks.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a listener to the Gastropod podcast and a viewer of various cooking shows (including one of the author's associate Heston Blumenthal's shows), I found that the first chapter or so didn't give me a lot that I hadn't heard before. However, after that it picked up, and overall I found it interesting.

The basic idea of the book is that our experience of, and behaviour around, food is unconsciously driven to an astonishing degree by the "everything else" apart from the food itself: appearance, packaging, texture, sound, expectations, and various aspects of the environment. I was aware of some of this through my study of nutrition, which included some papers on the ways in which people's food behaviours can be "nudged" by things like presenting multiple colours of food vs a single colour, or eating alone vs eating with others, but I was still surprised by the magnitude of the effects the author talks about. A difference of 10-20% in amount consumed or satisfaction reported or some other measure was not uncommon, for multiple different interventions.

The author has definite opinions, and isn't shy about sharing them; I didn't always agree, but I did always find them worth listening to.

I listened to the audiobook, which is read by someone with a fine Oxbridge accent, perfect for the author's prose (he's a professor at Oxford University).

Even if you already know quite a bit about the psychology of food, you may well strike something new and surprising here. Recommended.

[Kamilė Strach · Rating 2 out of 5]

Charles Spence - Gastrofozika (Naujas mokslas apie valgymą)

2🌟 iš 5🌟❗

Aš tikrai domiuosi maistu ir sveikomis cukraus/miltų alternatyvomis. Jūs tikrai tą žinote! Juk karts nuo karto įkeliu vieną kitą receptuką.🧁

Tai šia knygą buvau susidomėjusi be galo be krašto! Ištroškusi žinių apie maistą kaip visada aš.😃

⛔Deja, teko nusivilti, nes knygoje pateikiamos žinios gan pasenusios. O autoriaus pasipūtimas ir aiškinimas, kad aš geriau žinau, kažkaip visai teigiamai nenuteikė.

✔Džiugu tik tai, kad knyga skaitosi tikrai greitai ir lengvai. Nėra perkrauta teorija. Daug istorijų iš praktikos.

✔Beje, kas labai patiko ,,Gastrofizikoje", tai pasakojimai iš restoranų ir reklamos sferų. Kaip patraukti žmogų maisto išvaizda, kvapu. Kodėl mes perkame tam tikrų formų ir spalvų produktus, o kitus paliekame parduotuvių lentynose.

Pasidalinsiu vienu įdomiu faktu iš knygos:

🤎Šokoladinių ledų gamintojai visada naudoja pakvėpintą šokoladu įpakavimą, nes šaldytas šokoladas jokio kvapo neturi❗🤎

Žinojot, ar tai jums naujiena, kaip ir man?😃

❗Žodžiu, yra ir fainų skyrių! Tik aš nusivyliau todėl, kad per daug išankstinių nusistatymų ir lūkesčių turėjau prieš skaitydama.

✔✌Rekomenduoju tiems, kam įdomu, ką dedate į burną, ypač restoranuose ir kavinėse.

❗Tačiau ,,Gastrofozika" netinka tikriems maisto gurmanams, nes ši knyga jums naujos informacijos, kurios dar nežinote, tikrai nesuteiks.

[Brian Tracz · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5/5. A reasonably good overview on the research in this field. The main argument in the book is pretty light and unsurprising: the science of flavour and manipulation of dining circumstances will increase in the next few years. Well, that's not very astonishing.

I (a philosopher specializing in perception) would have liked a little more discussion on the difference between perceptual experience of food versus perceptual judgments about food. These aren't the same, and there are clear cases when they come apart. So in some cases in which Spence claims that some diners "enjoy" some food more than others, I would have liked a discussion about the basis for this result. Were diners simply _reporting_ a better experience, or was the _experience_ (not the report _of_ the experience) itself actually changed? These are different, and there is a clear sense in which the latter scenario is more radical. If the shape of a plate actually changes the flavour of a dish (i.e., the experience itself), then that's quite remarkable! (Indeed, some of the data in the book suggests that the experience _is_ changed.)

But I digress. Recommended for foodies interested in flavour.

[Wendy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I expected this book to be about the science of taste - the chemistry of food and the mechanics of how it is perceived. Instead, it focused more on the psychology of food and the inexact science of how we evaluate the things we eat. Still, it was pretty interesting read with lots of useful tidbits thrown in. It’s even given me some ideas I’m going to try to get my picky son to eat and enjoy the food I make for him!

I only gave it three stars because, though it started strong, I was less interested in the discussion of technology and futurism at the end of the book, so it ended as a bit of a drag.

[Angie Boyter · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too extreme for me to swallow!
If this description of a Futurist meal appeals to you (on any level) you might like this book:
"Pieces of olive, fennel, and kumquat are eaten with the right hand while the left hand caresses various swatches of sandpaper, velvet, and silk. At the same time, the diner is blasted with a giant fan (preferably an airplane propeller) and nimble waiters spray him with the scent of carnation, all to the strains of a Wagner opera."
I was not amused, especially when each of the many meals and techniques described in Gastromania seemed designed to see if it could be more extreme than the last!
The description of the book from the publisher stressed science, and there was some of that sprinkled through, but there was WAY too much of the bizarre and often obscenely overpriced and pretentious. Even when some science or at least fact-finding was mentioned, too often the mention was not very informative. For example, the author cited that Pizza Hut UK was able to increase customer purchases by an average of more than 20% by a big data analysis project. This piqued my interest, but he never told us what they found out! My inquiring mind is much more interested in that than in descriptions like the meal above. In addition, some of the science is simply wrong. For example, in the discussion of supertasters , the author says that supertasting is associated with a liking for bitter-tasting foods. According to the lecture I attended at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting a few years ago, that is the exact opposite of their preference---the extra papillae on their tongues make them so sensitive they cannot tolerate too strong a bitter flavor.
I had high hopes for the book and did pick up a few nice tidbits, like the term “anosmia”, which is an inability to smell some volatile chemical or other, but ultimately Gastrophysics was just not to my taste.

[Anna Shtorm · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gastrophysics by Charles Spence was my choice for a long train ride read. I never heard of the author before, but I like the cover and the title was intriguing.

So I bought it. I never read pop science literature before, and now I know that this is my cup of tea.

The book is an adventure in itself. The author takes you to many places, from the plane in the sky to the most expensive restaurant around the globe. He gives insights on the things that I never paid attention to. Charles Spence breaks into the pieces the complex science of poly sensory experiences in the food industry.

In the end of the book the author gives some useful advises on what you can do to improve your health and relationships with food.

That book was the box of surprises for me and I was puzzled to discover that it has quite some 1 star opinion on goodreads. I guess I am not that sophisticated and knowledgeable when it comes to science that’s why I was like a kid in the candy store discovering new exciting things about gastrophysics.

[Nawara H. · Rating 3 out of 5]

เรื่อยๆ เพลินๆ ไม่ได้หวือหวาอะไร แต่จริงๆ คาดหวังกว่านี้ว่าการเป็นนัก Gastrophycisist เนี่ยจะแบไต๋อะไรให้เราฟังเพียบ หรืออธิบายเชิงจิตวิทยาได้ลึกกว่านี้ ไม่รู้เพราะเราเป็น foodie อยู่แล้วรึเปล่า เลยรู้สึกว่าสิ่งที่อ่านนี่หาอ่านที่ไหนก็ได้ โดยเฉพาะบนต้นๆ ที่แยกเนื้อหาตามประสาทสัมผัสต่างๆ นี่ธรรมดามาก อาจจะตื่นเต้นตรงผลวิจัยนู่นนี่นั่นหน่อยๆ แต่ก็แค่นั้นแหละ

แต่บทที่ชอบที่สุดคือ Airline Food เพราะมันคือสิ่งที่เราไม่เคยรู้มาก่อน และมันตอบคำถามเราได้ว่าทำไมอาหารบนเครื่องถึงเย็นชืด ทำไมเมื่อขึ้นเครื่อง คนเราถึงมีแนวโน้มสั่งน้ำมะเขือเทศกว่าเวลาอยู่ภาคพื้นดิน บนนี้ยกให้ 5 ดาวอ่ะ รองลงมาคือบท The Meal Remembered ที่ให้คำอธิบายดีว่าทำไมส่วนใหญ่เราจำร้าน จำคนที่ไปด้วยได้ แต่จำไม่ค่อยได้ว่ากินอะไร (ถ้าไม่ได้ถ่ายรูปเก็บไว้)

คิดว่าเป็นหนังสือที่เหมาะสำหรับคนทำร้านอาหาร หรือบริษัทอาหารที่อยากพัฒนาสินค้ามากกว่า เพราะข้อมูลจิตวิทยาผสมฟิสิกส์ย่อมๆ ในเล่มนี้ใช้เป็นทริกพรางการรับรู้ลูกค้าได้ประมาณนึง แต่ถ้าคิดอ่านอยากหาคำอธิบาย-สายสัมพันธ์ระหว่างอาหารกับสมองแบะจิตใจแบบลึกซึ้ง เล่มนี้ไม่ใช่คำตอบจ้ะ

[Bridgett Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

I won this book in a Goodreads Giveaway.
This was a pretty interesting book. Ever wonder why different experiences at restaurants make you wanna go back and some make you never come back. Things like how the shape of plates or their tint affect the experience. Why airline food tastes less than fabulous. How rotating the plate changes the entire impression of the meal. How spraying food fragrances warms up the audience. How the sound of crispness changes our attitude. How the weight of cutlery changes our impression. How putting up a sign (Italy Week) and using red checkered tablecloths make diners think the same Italian menu items from always are suddenly fresher and more authentic. How eating off a tablet computer screen (as a plate) allows for a background video to complement the food. crazy stuff lol

[Brian Conor · Rating 4 out of 5]

A super interesting collection of vignettes, stories, studies, histories, and personal experiences all related to how food is much more than just food. The book is split into chapters for each of the 5 senses as well as other topics like social dining, experiential dining, digital dining, etc. You will learn a lot about behavioral economics, psychology, chemistry, biology, technology, marketing and more, and how it all relates to what we eat, how we eat, how much we eat, what we like to eat, what we feel when we eat... there's so much. So cool for anyone interested in food in any way, for scientists wanting to look at food beyond nutrition, and restaurateurs wanting to experiment with their menu choices, the menus themselves, the music playing, the color of their walls, etc.

[Andreea Antonescu · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s a really good book for students in culinary arts and foodies out there. It presents both theory resulted from studies and clear examples with tips on how to do it yourself at home and even how to be more mindful about what and how you eat. It’s easy to understand and represents a good basis for those who want to know more about food experience and design. The only thing I’m having a problem is with some terms and associations, like the term gastro physicist for example. The author uses the same few chefs and their respective restaurants as examples and it can be a little annoying hearing the same name on and on.

[Meg C · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a neat book! I didn’t really know what to expect from this book, but I am a foodie so I thought why not read it. Spence walks you through everything that goes into our experiences with food and drink that does not actually involve the objective contents of the meal or drink. Humans are complex creatures and the science of gastrophysics seeks to combine our psychological and biological preferences with the experiences we have in restaurants or consuming food at home. I was skeptical at first about whether or not gastrophysics is a valid field of science but I feel convinced after finishing the book. The color of plateware, the weight of cutlery, the company we keep while dining. All of these things determine how much we eat and our impression of the experience. I will never view dining the same after this book but I also feel like a much more informed consumer. Highly recommend!

[Victor Porras · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pop-science, entertaining but not profound. I mostly bought it for the title, which is slightly misleading. This is more psychology of eating than the physics or chemistry of cooking.

[Francesco · Rating 4 out of 5]

Za dużo naczytałem się o jedzeniu, a za mało go rzeczywiście zjadłem

[Kate Ezzell · Rating 3 out of 5]

The intersections of cooking, psychology, and physics are fascinating and exciting, and Spence shares some really interesting findings. However, it’s hard to trace the through line of the book. Sometimes the content got too into the weeds, and I felt like Spence was just throwing out examples for examples’ sake.