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

251–260 of 266 posts

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

#251

Post by Dylan16807 »

flaminHotSpeedo wrote: post #250
Dylan16807 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I worded that badly.

I meant cooking significantly longer is outside the scope, since that implies different temperature (or a rubber brick).

Yes, cooking different times at the same temperature is exactly what I was responding to. The outside will be a lot hotter if you do that.

If the juice loss is the same, there's a missing factor here, why does only the middle temperature matter and not the edge temperature?

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

#253

Post by gosub100 »

gerdesj wrote: post #171
chasebank wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Resting allows the temperature to drop, which creates less pressure, so the juices aren't forced out of the meat nearly as strongly." I was always under the impression that if you pull your meat at let's say 128, resting it will bring the internal temperature up, finishing at like 132-134. Is this wrong?

"I was always under the impression that if you pull your meat at let's say 128" Please state units. In en_GB (at least) "pulling your meat" is ... ambiguous.

what if I am feeding the geese? how do I disambiguate that one?

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

#254

Post by genocidicbunny »

pizzafeelsright wrote: post #240
pillefitz wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

May I ask how you came to the conclusion that eating steak may have health concerns? Who determines the diet for sharks or gorillas?

It varies between individuals, but there are absolutely cases where steak and other red meats can have health concerns. Hemochromatosis is one that immediately comes to mind.

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

#255

Post by genocidicbunny »

hnfong wrote: post #231
ddorian43 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is actually the reverse. Keto & carnivore(with only fatty read meat) is the best. If you have diseases like diabetes/epilepsy/mental-illness/food-addiction/etc it (may) help a lot. I eat 6-7 days/week red meat. Source: I do ketovore for 2.5+ years.

FWIW, I hear there could be issues with (too much) iron especially for men. At any rate, do be aware that human biology is quite diverse and diets that work for one may not work for others.

> FWIW, I hear there could be issues with (too much) iron especially for men.

Too much iron can cause serious systemic issues, especially for the liver, and yes, men tend to have worse symptoms for the simple reason that one of the treatments for high iron is bloodletting. Unlike women, men don't have a natural built in mechanism to do so regularly.

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

#256

Post by crazygringo »

davidczech wrote: post #166
crazygringo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a bizarre suggestion. You don't slice individual portions of meat before serving. If I order a pork chop or a ribeye at a restaurant, I'd be horrified if it came pre-sliced. And for something like an entire roast, you want to slice shortly before serving so it doesn't get too cold. Just account for carry-over cooking and cook it less initially, or sous vide.

Big steak fan here. Many times I've ordered a large cut of meat, like a porter house or a tomahawk (usually intended to be shared with the table), they have came pre sliced. I'm pretty sure even Peter Luger's will pre slice it for you even for an individual.

Which is why I said individual portions. I didn't say for sharing. And I didn't say if you specifically request otherwise.

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

#257

Post by gerdesj »

phs318u wrote: post #180
gerdesj wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I was always under the impression that if you pull your meat at let's say 128" Please state units. In en_GB (at least) "pulling your meat" is ... ambiguous.

Off topic, and please forgive the way my mind works, but having read your comment I couldn't help thinking that the interpretive ambiguity would be resolved if the unit stated was "pulls" per minute (128 ppm while vigorous, is still plausible).

"128 ppm while vigorous, is still plausible"

That's ~2.1Hz - Pretty normal. Perhaps get some soothing balm on hand, just in case 8)

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

#258

Post by [deleted] »

ddorian43 wrote: post #238
pillefitz wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's for sure not the "reverse", even if for some people with certain diseases the benefits may outweigh the risks. It's undeniably linked to certain cancers and arteriosclerosis

It's actually the reverse. "some people" is every person that is overweight (50% of USA). "cancer" are studies where it includes other things, like fast food etc. Haven't researched arteriosclerosis, but we'd have to see studies being done on healthy patients with strict keto/carnivore and not dirty diet.

[deleted]

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

#259

Post by Swannie »

tayo42 wrote: post #182
Workaccount2 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People would probably do stuff like sous vide and then finish with 5 minutes in the smoker.

Probably the reverse becasue you want to accurately control the end temperature. And, atleast with a pressure cooker, comes out amazing.

From Meathead's posts, he talks about the smoke only being absorbed in the first part of the cooking.

I had assumed that correlated to the temperature... I would be smoking first, then sous vide if I was going for smoke and internal texture.

But if you're going for a bark/crust, I am not sure sous vide helps, as the moisture coming out of the meat is part of that process.

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

#260

Post by ddorian43 »

Antipode wrote: post #239
ddorian43 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is actually the reverse. Keto & carnivore(with only fatty read meat) is the best. If you have diseases like diabetes/epilepsy/mental-illness/food-addiction/etc it (may) help a lot. I eat 6-7 days/week red meat. Source: I do ketovore for 2.5+ years.

That directly contradicts everything I've ever read about high red meat consumption. Are there reputable studies that back this up?

No, there aren't. And no, you haven't ready any reputable studies where people did clean keto/carnivore.

All your studies are people just talking about their diet, eating meat & stuff. And that "meat & stuff" never works on treating any diseases either.

Feel free to link anything from "everything I've ever read about high red meat consumption" and we'll see if it's true keto/carnivore/ketovore.

Post reply on HN