About FoodHQ

FoodHQ is a reference for how food behaves. It exists to explain what is actually happening when you cook — how heat arrives at the food, what changes inside it, what limits the result, and what goes wrong — and to show the evidence behind each of those explanations.

It is not a recipe site. There are no ingredient lists, no dinner suggestions and no meal plans. If you want to know why one method browns a surface and another cannot, that is what this is for.

What it covers today

FoodHQ publishes two kinds of writing and it is worth knowing which you are reading, because they carry different guarantees.

Written explanations are ordinary editorial prose: what a food is, how a method works, what to do when something goes wrong. They are written to be accurate and useful, they draw on general culinary knowledge and on published sources, and no individual sentence carries its own citation.

Sourced statements are different. Each is a single claim tied to a specific passage in a specific source, and you can open any of them to see where it came from, how strong the evidence is and what conditions it depends on. FoodHQ currently holds 685 of these, drawn from 58 registered sources, and they appear on pages throughout the site under their own headings.

You can always tell them apart: a sourced statement has an evidence control attached to it and a written explanation does not. Nothing on this site is presented as more certain than it is.

Both are held to a minimum. A written page has to be substantial enough to be worth a reader’s time before it is published, and a page assembled from sourced statements has to carry enough of them and cover enough ground. Pages that meet neither exist and stay unlisted.

What it deliberately will not do

Who makes it

FoodHQ is built and edited by its operator. Content is assembled by software from a knowledge base, and the sourcing and editorial rules that software follows are described in Methodology. No individual claim on this site has been reviewed by a subject-matter expert, and nothing here says otherwise.