Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013) • Hacker News Board

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#161

Post by paulcole » Sun, Jan 23, 2022, 12:51 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #52

paulcole wrote: post #43

Quoted post unavailable.

Mind explaining why?

HN readers are generally pretty privileged. This is slightly inconvenient change they can make to their lives. If they’re not willing to do something this small and easy, what hope does humanity have for “success” overcoming climate change?

150 years from now, people will wish all they have to do is limit steak consumption. It’s far below the very least we can today, but it’s something.

Important note: I never said “go vegan today” or anything close to that. I said, limit steak consumption to a few times a year.

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#162

Post by scrame » Sun, Jan 23, 2022, 12:51 AM UTC

cheese_goddess wrote: post #152

I think scientific cooking completely misses the point about cooking and about eating food. You should cook your food the way your senses tell you is right. You should cook your food so that your senses tell you it's right. You're going to taste the food with your mouth and smell it with your nose. You're not going to taste it with a thermometer or whatever else silly probe of irrelevance anyone might think of sticki…

I have a good friend who works in that space, and is pretty open that it's not practical at the very high end. It's interesting to find that putting a bottle of wine in a blender has the same result as airing things out in an expensive decanter, but you don't need a high end blender to enjoy wine.

The high end of "scientific cooking" is figuring out what and why things taste good, or how to do it. Unfortunately it also becomes a catalog for people buying useless expensive crap because it's "healthy" or something. See: juicero.

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#163

Post by Wistar » Sun, Jan 23, 2022, 12:52 AM UTC

csdvrx wrote: post #40

errcorrectcode wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the consumer had to grow the cow in complete unconsciousness without antibotics and with enough room to avoid close contact with other wild and domestic animals to prevent superbug evolution, slaughter it, cook it, and pay for all of the GHG offsets of the entire supply chain necessary to support it, then it would be fine. Or, it's not, and it's an indulgence worse and different than heroin because its widespread…

Do you really need to rain on everyone's parade? Some people like meat. Deal with it.

AKA, don't yuk my yum.

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#164

Post by contravariant » Sun, Jan 23, 2022, 12:54 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #115

contravariant wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair, but given their incredulous "bones have more flavor than meat?" I figured it was worth pointing out that bones do in fact have flavour. Also I think some steaks (like T-bone) do have some amount of marrow, their myth doesn't specify rib steaks.

The marrow you're getting out of a marrow bone (ie: the marrow you're getting when you order a dish at a restaurant that has "bone marrow" in it, or features marrow) is also not the same kind of marrow as is in the thin/small bones you're getting in a steak. No, I don't think marrow is making bone-in steak taste better. (Marrow, though, would make a steak taste better! Order a marrow bone, cook the marrow, and then b…

I'm willing to accept that marrow won't have much of an effect on cooking a steak, simply because:

1) The marrow isn't touching the actual meat

2) Bone marrow and steak have very different preparations

Claiming bones don't have any flavour is a silly overcorrection though.

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#165

Post by ckastner » Sun, Jan 23, 2022, 12:54 AM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #141

ckastner wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also it's not entirely insane to believe bones impart flavour Brown stock is made from roasted bones, among other things, so I too feel somewhat skeptical about the claim that bones cannot import at least some sort of flavor.

With brown stock, you're eating bits of the bone. With a bone in steak, you're eating bits of meat that have been near the bone. It's not impossible that it would have an impact, but there's no obvious mechanism either. (And as the author points out, there's no particular reason why, even if flavour transfer was happening, it'd go the direction you want either.)

Fair enough regarding the first sentence, but why would the direction be one-way anyway? Lots of interactions go both ways.

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#166

Post by cthalupa » Sun, Jan 23, 2022, 12:54 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #138

staticassertion wrote: post #125

Most of this sounds right. I think the 'bone in' myth is a little more subtle and I'm not convinced that poking my steak 4 times just to flip it is worthwhile (it's gonna release juice, that's gonna cool the pan down and create steam). Otherwise, yep. I will add that by far the number one thing you can do to up your steak game is to just buy better steaks. There's a massive difference between a good cut and an ok cut…

I have never had a "wagyu" steak (served as a steak) that I found special. It's to the point where "wagyu" is kind of a red flag for me. (I've had A5 prepared at sushi places, and that I get, but it's a totally different preparation).

For the wagyu served as a steak, have you tried A5 like you had at the sushi places? I've never had much luck in finding American or Australian wagyu that is a significant enough step up over regular Prime to make it worth the price, but real A5 or BMS9+ I've absolutely found to be special.

I haven't found the price difference on Kobe to be worth it over Kagoshima or Miyazaki, though.

Edit: I see this is answered in another comment :)

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#167

Post by abakker » Sun, Jan 23, 2022, 12:55 AM UTC

bobbygunderson wrote: post #85

abakker wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do this in a smoker sometimes. Smoke to 100*, rest, and then sear on grill or in pan. Don’t use much smoke. Can be a really killer way to do ribeyes and porterhouse.

Yep yep yep. And I’ll also echo don’t use much smoke - I went way overboard with some mesquite to see what it would be like, and it was fine but definitely detracted. A light smoke then a char is chef’s kiss though.

What’s your favorite wood? I used peach recently and it was nice, but I’d be open to try anything.

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#168

Post by YokoZar » Sun, Jan 23, 2022, 12:56 AM UTC

cheese_goddess wrote: post #152

I think scientific cooking completely misses the point about cooking and about eating food. You should cook your food the way your senses tell you is right. You should cook your food so that your senses tell you it's right. You're going to taste the food with your mouth and smell it with your nose. You're not going to taste it with a thermometer or whatever else silly probe of irrelevance anyone might think of sticki…

I'm not sure you even clicked the link your point is so orthogonal.

> Cook some identical roasts or steaks. Cook one bone-in, cook one with the bone removed but tied back on, and cook a third with the bone removed and tied back on with a layer of impermeable aluminum foil in between. Then cut them all up and taste them (preferably with a large group of people in a blind setting). You'll find that they all taste pretty much identical.

This "scientific cooking" is all about the taste that results. People aren't applying these myths because they've tried it both ways and their senses tell them one is better than the other, that's the whole point of making an article like this.

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#169

Post by JshWright » Sun, Jan 23, 2022, 12:56 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #44

fisherjeff wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard disagree on convenience: Timing hot steaks with hot sides is virtually effortless with a circulator

Not really. You have the same problem either way, because you've gotta sear both steaks. If you're going to need to hold the cooked reverse-sear steaks, bring them up to 120-124 (your final target temp is 128-132) instead of 115. I get what you're saying (I've got like 4 different circulators here, I'm not against them!) but the reverse sear is forgiving and flexible enough that I don't really even get a convenience…

For me the convenience factor has to do with the fact that I can vacuum seal and freeze a bunch of meat at once, then it's just a matter of tossing the vacuum sealed bag in the circulator a few hours before dinner. Then I just need to pull it out, hit it with the torch, and we're ready to eat. I suspect the longer cooking time to account for the meant being frozen helps with fat rendering.

We buy half a beef every six months or so (split with my parents, so I guess it's technically 5/7th's of a half? 5/14th's of a cow?). For a few hours on a weekend doing some prep/portioning, I can dramatically reduce the workload for several week's worth of meals.

Obviously there's other tradeoffs involved and different personal circumstances to consider, but for me the circulator wins out from a convenience perspective.

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#170

Post by DoreenMichele » Sun, Jan 23, 2022, 12:57 AM UTC

errcorrectcode wrote: post #97

serf wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The animals don't like it. as opposed to the plant that longs for death? there are plenty of nervous-system-like responses from plants that are undergoing destruction, why not just admit that the reason behind these complaints is a selfish human-empowering reason rather than the emotional appeal of "what about the animals?" ? Won't anyone think of the plants? "...you are denying others the right to live." Isn't this…

Apples and steaks. Apples don't feel pain or nurse their young. You're attempting reductionism into absurd, conflated equivocation.

There are plenty of animals that don't nurse their young. That's a peculiarity of mammals.

And the scientific evidence suggests that plants do likely feel something akin to what could be called pain.

Their inability to scream with sounds detectable by human ears isn't evidence they don't feel anything.

It's not absurd. It's what science tells us -- that plants emit chemicals to communicate to other plants about infestations of insects so they can take action to protect themselves and when injured they may give off a "pulse", aka a type of scream.