Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Major rule about cooking meat turns out to be wrong

seriouseats.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 266 posts

Re: Major rule about cooking meat turns out to be wrong

#241

Post by benhurmarcel »

pillefitz wrote: post #209
twodave wrote: post #168

I cook (and eat) a lot of steak. Probably 3-4 per week, 1.5" thick ribeyes. For me, resting has always been about temperature normalization. I like to sear my steaks in a cast iron skillet. I use an induction cooktop and tend to start at medium-high and ramp up to as hot as the stove will get. I think the ramp-up is important to render some of the fat without just letting it all evaporate. I turn the steaks over freq…

Aren't you worried about the health impacts of eating steak that frequently?

Probably should be more worried about the environmental impact

Re: Major rule about cooking meat turns out to be wrong

#242

Post by colordrops »

supportengineer wrote: post #33
colordrops wrote: post #9

[flagged]

If you take this line of thinking to the extreme, shouldn't you allow yourself to become unalive and then allow yourself to be eaten by others?

Why do people always have such completely nonsensical responses when it comes to stopping eating animals? It's not extreme. My family, including 2 young children, has not eaten meat for 4 years and we are super healthy, healthier and happier than most around us. I said "sentient" for a reason. I never said to stop eating everything.

Re: Major rule about cooking meat turns out to be wrong

#245

Post by wallst07 »

benhurmarcel wrote: post #241
pillefitz wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't you worried about the health impacts of eating steak that frequently?

Probably should be more worried about the environmental impact

Why is that a concern exactly? Why does every decision need an environmental impact? How do you know he doesn't plant a tree for every steak he eats?

Re: Major rule about cooking meat turns out to be wrong

#246

Post by lionkor »

sebtron wrote: post #214
lionkor wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try it, it works (as the article says, too)

But doesn't it get cold?

No! The meat internally is already cooking, and resting it a bit doesn't make it cold. It does cool down, but the resulting temperature is pleasant, not cold.

Re: Major rule about cooking meat turns out to be wrong

#247

Post by Aeroi »

rsyring wrote: post #88
Aeroi wrote: post #85

my take away after wasting minutes of my life reading this is that you remove meat slightly sooner, rest for 5-6 minutes. that way juice is retained and internal temperature is on target when sliced.

The article makes it clear it's not about retaining juice. It is about internal temp and managing carryover cooking.

the photos showing the the resting period indicate otherwise.

Re: Major rule about cooking meat turns out to be wrong

#248

Post by Dylan16807 »

flaminHotSpeedo wrote: post #229
Dylan16807 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about the method in that example, which was cooking as fast as possible.

Yes, my example is unrealistic when you apply your own unrealistic constraints on top of it. But when you remove your unrealistic constraints, it is absolutely realistic. There is a wide temperature band where a cut of meat will reach a given center temp faster than carryover cooking with a difference to edge temperature that is trivial enough that someone is unlikely to notice.

It was your example, I was just trying to stick within it. I'm not intentionally adding constraints "on top". I'm just saying that "cook longer" is outside the scope of my response.

I disagree that the edge temperature difference would be trivial. The difference between the last 20 degrees in the middle coming out of the edges while they also lose heat to their surroundings versus making the edges even hotter as you continue cooking is quite a lot.

Re: Major rule about cooking meat turns out to be wrong

#249

Post by roelschroeven »

misja111 wrote: post #230
dataviz1000 wrote: post #105

"Searing the meat seals in the juices" -- every chef on every cooking show. Can we do a study on that too? hmmmmm. I want to grill two steaks, the same size, and to the same internal temperature on the same grill. Let one rest for ten minutes in a pie pan and cut the other into 4 pieces letting it also rest for ten minutes in a pie pan. Probably also wrap them in tinfoil. Then weigh the released juices at the end. Th…

> "Searing the meat seals in the juices" -- every chef on every cooking show. This was debunked a long time ago. You do want to sear the meat, but only to give it a nice and tasty brown crust due to Maillard reactions. Searing does not seal in any juices. I can recommend the book Cooking for Geeks, it has some nice scientific explanations about this and some other stuff too.

Or "On Food And Cooking: The Science And Lore Of The Kitchen" by Harold McGee.

Re: Major rule about cooking meat turns out to be wrong

#250

Post by flaminHotSpeedo »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #248
flaminHotSpeedo wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, my example is unrealistic when you apply your own unrealistic constraints on top of it. But when you remove your unrealistic constraints, it is absolutely realistic. There is a wide temperature band where a cut of meat will reach a given center temp faster than carryover cooking with a difference to edge temperature that is trivial enough that someone is unlikely to notice.

It was your example, I was just trying to stick within it. I'm not intentionally adding constraints "on top". I'm just saying that "cook longer" is outside the scope of my response. I disagree that the edge temperature difference would be trivial. The difference between the last 20 degrees in the middle coming out of the edges while they also lose heat to their surroundings versus making the edges even hotter as you…

"cook longer" at the same temperature is my original example (though admittedly I was thinking that cook temp would be another variable, but I didn't write that):

> now we know that I could simply keep cooking the meat for longer

Cooking longer at the same temperature is also pretty much exactly what the experiment in the article was, which found no statistically significant correlation between testing and juiciness.

The experimental group pork chops took less time from when they were put on the skillet to when they were cut (and when they would have been consumed if they were cooked by someone making a meal for themselves).

You're welcome to disagree, but the facts disagree with your stance.

Post reply on HN