| Abstract: | The importance of maintaining the purity of rheological terms and using them only when measurements and definitions are in accordance with the accepted rheological definitions is pointed out. It is shown that if rheological terms and methods of measurements and analyses are used correctly, they can be employed in food texture studies even though conditions upon which the theory is based are not fully met. It is proposed that the term “modulus of elasticity” be replaced by the term “modulus of deformabtiity” which considers both recoverable and unrecoverable deformations that often take place when a food sample is subjected to even very small strains. It is also submitted that mechanical properties reflecting the behavior of the material under small strains do not necessarily correlate significantly with mechanical properties which reflect the yielding and fracturing or failure of the material. Published data are examined to test the validity of this hypothesis. In general, correlations between well-defined failure type instrumental tests and panel tests are good, whereas correlations between small-strain instrumental tests and panel tests are poor. |
