ABSTRACTA review of the methods used to measure meat texture indicates considerable confusion in terminology, test conditions, and interpretation of the readings that makes evaluation of the results a complex task. Standardization of the methods appears premature and until this is accomplished, the applied methodology must be reported fully. Errors due to instrument design can no longer be accepted since modern instruments that overcome this are readily available. A common error in terminology or interpretation is the use of the term shear to describe the rupture imposed on meat samples in popular tests. It is shown that meat generally ruptures in tension which is also the case during mastication; this explains why empirical measurements often relate to sensory readings. It is concluded that there is room for improvement in existing methods, particularly in the interpretation of the results using common sense, close observation and theoretical analysis.