Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Did you eat Hot Dogs today?Follow

#77 Jul 05 2011 at 6:20 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Quote:
It comes down to taste. Some people like a tough outer crust on their steak, with a softer interior. They are the barbarians who don't know anything about how steak should be cooked. The civilized folks know that the ideal steak should be as evenly textured from outside to inside as possible. The proof of this is that any old idiot with on overheated stove or charcoal grill can burn the outside while leaving the inside raw. It's how steak comes out if you don't know what the hell you're doing. Toss meat in a fire and that's what you get, right? It was good enough for the cavemen, so it should be good enough for us? The idea that someone would actually choose to deliberately cook a steak like that seems like a horrible waste of steak.


Considering most professional chefs don't cook steak that way, I'm going to guess that this is a bad argument.

And if you can explain to me how cavemen managed to warm meat-cooking surfaces to 500 degrees, I'd love to know. I'm going to guess that nomad societies only ever built small fires. And I'm guessing they didn't cook their meat in the center of them.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#78 Jul 05 2011 at 6:25 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
gbaji wrote:
But that's not the question, is it? The question is: If I'm grilling a steak and only grilling a steak, will I produce a juicier steak by setting the temperature at a modest level based on the thickness of the steak and then cook it slowly and relatively evenly, or by using a pan or other flat surface set at a super hot temperature and "searing" the top and bottom in order to seal the juices in, and then cook it the rest of the way?

The first method results in a evenly cooked steak which depending solely on how long you cook it for can range from well done to rare. The second method results in a hard crust on the outside of the steak, and a soft mushy and nearly raw interior. Unless you cook it longer, in which case you end out with a burnt outside and cooked inside.

Not that I'm suggesting pan searing first is a better method for grilling, but it is possible to pan sear first then then continue cooking the steak on the grill without burning the outside. You sear as usual at extremely high temperatures, and then when placed on the grill you put into a cooler section so that the heat transfer is more gradual. You will not burn the outside anymore than in a traditional sear when done this way.

Again, I'm not suggesting that this is the better method, but it is possible to sear and then grill to any doneness without charring/overcooking the outside.
#79 Jul 05 2011 at 6:27 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
idiggory wrote:
And if you can explain to me how cavemen managed to warm meat-cooking surfaces to 500 degrees, I'd love to know.

They probably put them near a campfire, as small campfires can easily reach over 500 degrees.
#80 Jul 05 2011 at 6:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
idiggory wrote:
Considering most professional chefs don't cook steak that way, I'm going to guess that this is a bad argument.


Most professional chefs don't cook steak which way?

We're also talking about home cooking here, right? Like a Fourth of July cookout. Um... and outside of a few crazy places, no one eats steak the way Joph the Philistine likes it. ;)

Quote:
And if you can explain to me how cavemen managed to warm meat-cooking surfaces to 500 degrees, I'd love to know. I'm going to guess that nomad societies only ever built small fires. And I'm guessing they didn't cook their meat in the center of them.


The Joph equivalent of cavemen just tossed large slabs of meat onto wood coals from their campfires. I'm sure of it!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#81 Jul 05 2011 at 6:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Allegory wrote:
Not that I'm suggesting pan searing first is a better method for grilling, but it is possible to pan sear first then then continue cooking the steak on the grill without burning the outside. You sear as usual at extremely high temperatures, and then when placed on the grill you put into a cooler section so that the heat transfer is more gradual. You will not burn the outside anymore than in a traditional sear when done this way.


Sure. But somewhat by definition, any kind of "sear" on the outside of the steak is going to be harder and dryer than the part that isn't seared. Certainly, if someone's arguing that this is done to the point of "trapping in juices", it has to be done to the point of making the outsides tough.

Silly me. I want a steak that is soft and juicy all the way through. For me, it completely defeats the purpose of having a juicy interior if I have to saw through the outside to get to it.

Quote:
Again, I'm not suggesting that this is the better method, but it is possible to sear and then grill to any doneness without charring/overcooking the outside.


Yeah. My argument doesn't depend on the outside being charred/blackened/whatever.


Honestly, this is just a fun rehash of an old argument Joph and I had. As I said, it's a matter of taste. He tosses out his Pittsburgh Rare as some kind of Shangri-La of steaks, while I find the whole thing absolutely disgusting. The original topic which started us on this little steak-feud was my comment about a steak place I went to in Vegas (one of the higher end places), which cooked their steaks too crusty on the outside for my taste. Joph proposed that it would have been better if it had been cooked in the non-edible manner he likes his steaks.

/shudder!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Jul 05 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Allegory wrote:
idiggory wrote:
And if you can explain to me how cavemen managed to warm meat-cooking surfaces to 500 degrees, I'd love to know.

They probably put them near a campfire, as small campfires can easily reach over 500 degrees.


The core of the fire, sure. But unless we are imagining that paleolithic men cooked their meat in the center of the fire, then I highly doubt they were cooking their meat at such high temperatures. I imagine that meat for cooking was skewered on sticks and placed near the fire, which would be more than enough to cook it, but not nearly high enough for a sear.

This is assuming a small campfire, of course. If it's some kind of huge bonfire in the center of a village or something, it's a different story. But I'm still not convinced you'd hit 500 without the meat being in the fire.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#83 Jul 05 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
idiggory wrote:
The core of the fire, sure. But unless we are imagining that paleolithic men cooked their meat in the center of the fire, then I highly doubt they were cooking their meat at such high temperatures. I imagine that meat for cooking was skewered on sticks and placed near the fire, which would be more than enough to cook it, but not nearly high enough for a sear.

This is assuming a small campfire, of course. If it's some kind of huge bonfire in the center of a village or something, it's a different story. But I'm still not convinced you'd hit 500 without the meat being in the fire.


The point isn't about how hot the fire is, but how evenly the heat can be projected into the meat for the time period that the meat is cooking. Too hot, and the outside will get crisp/burned before the inside will properly cook. Too cool and you can evenly cook it, but it'll be dry as hell by the time you're done. If you can get the correct evenly sustained temperature based on the thickness of the steak, you can cook it fast enough to avoid drying, but slow enough to prevent crisping or burning the outside. This produces an ideally cooked steak.

With the exception of the Pittsburgh Rare (Joph's preferred steak), where the intention is to crisp the outside while leaving the inside nearly raw, if the outside is significantly tougher/crispier than the inside, the person cooking the steak cooked it at too high a temperature. In other words, they did it wrong. The objective of cooking steak (bizarre form of rare aside) is to cook it as evenly through the whole meat as possible.


A medium rare (my preferred steak) should gradually change from brown and tender on the outside to pink (but not bloody) in the middle. It takes both correctly setting the temperature to the thickness of the steak and correctly timing the cooking to get this right. If the temperature is properly set, you should be able to cook any similarly thick steak anywhere from rare to well done simply by adjusting the time it's cooked. The key is to learn the proper temperature for the steak you are cooking. Some steak houses will claim to be deliberately cooking it more crisp on the outside as some form of "style" of steak, but IMO that's really just an excuse for not spending the effort to do it correctly. Even the Pittsburgh Rare IMO is a cop out. It's the ultimate example of people not knowing how (or wanting to spend the effort to) set the proper temperature for the steak they're cooking and just kinda going "F it!" cranking the temperature up to 11 and searing the hell out of the outside, leaving the inside raw and calling it a day.


Most people just accept improperly cooked steaks because they either don't know any better, or they don't want to say anything. Some crazy wacky nutty people like Joph actually glorify their simplistic barbarian style of steak cooking and call it some kind of exotic delicacy or something. You know what else is a delicacy? Monkey brains, snails, balut, and haggis. Why imitate a food item that exists largely because of necessity, desperation, and/or extreme hunger?


But hey! That's just my opinion on the subject. It's a matter of taste, right? My taste just happens to be better than some others... ;)

Edited, Jul 5th 2011 6:35pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#84 Jul 05 2011 at 7:26 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
It's like watching Hank Hill arguing with Tom Anderson.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#85 Jul 05 2011 at 7:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Tee hee! Yup.

Oh. And in a mild defense of my friends indefensible comment about "searing" the outside to trap in the juices, the grill he was using has a temperature gauge on it. Said gauge actually has a range of temperature labeled as "sear". I looked. Yes, I couldn't believe it either. I'm sure it's made that way just so that people who think you should sear your meat to seal in juices have a setting to do this with. Never mind that you don't want to do that in the first place, and never mind that a grill can't actually sear the whole surface of the meat, but I'm sure that some marketing guy realized that they'd be better able to compete in the gas-grill market if they put that label on there.


It's called "marketing to idiocy". But what the hell, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Jul 05 2011 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
idiggory wrote:
The core of the fire, sure.

No, a fair distance away too. I may have forgotten everything else from cub scouts, but when they were burning stuff I paid attention. A quick google reveals small campfires easily get up to 900 degree Fahrenheit from several different sources.

Here is a single link: http://ukweli.wordpress.com/2007/07/31/temperature-campfire-foods/

Edited, Jul 5th 2011 8:44pm by Allegory
#87 Jul 05 2011 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
gbaji wrote:
The point isn't about how hot the fire is, but how evenly the heat can be projected into the meat for the time period that the meat is cooking. Too hot, and the outside will get crisp/burned before the inside will properly cook. Too cool and you can evenly cook it, but it'll be dry as hell by the time you're done. If you can get the correct evenly sustained temperature based on the thickness of the steak, you can cook it fast enough to avoid drying, but slow enough to prevent crisping or burning the outside. This produces an ideally cooked steak.

Or you can use two different heats, a high temperature to sear and then a low temperature to finish off as is extremely common. Searing a meat first is a different technique. There is a slight moisture loss traded to result in a very different flavor due to caramelization and the Maillard reaction that cannot be achieved by using a constant temperature.

The idea that is in any way the wrong way to cook meat is completely ridiculous.

Edited, Jul 5th 2011 8:55pm by Allegory
#88 Jul 05 2011 at 8:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Seared on the outside and raw in the middle sounds like a great steak to me.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#89 Jul 05 2011 at 8:14 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Quote:
Seared on the outside and raw in the middle sounds like a great steak to me.


I can't help but think that you'd be happy if the waiter brought you a living cow.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#90 Jul 05 2011 at 8:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's cute watching Gbaji try to lecture about how to cook steak.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 Jul 05 2011 at 8:25 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Quote:
It's cute watching Gbaji try to lecture about how to cook steak.


I never even eat steak so it doesn't matter to me. :P
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#92 Jul 05 2011 at 8:27 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
Seared on the outside and raw in the middle sounds like a great steak to me.


I can't help but think that you'd be happy if the waiter brought you a living cow.
If it had a really really nice cut available on it, then maybe.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#93 Jul 05 2011 at 8:30 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
I prefer a medium rare steak. I like the taste of the warm red center. I will eat them rare, and do sometimes (usually if the steak was a bit thicker and I didn't cook it long enough). But I still prefer the medium rare. I always hate it when my extended family come over for dinners, and ask me to ruin steaks for them. All my Aunts' families demand a well done steak...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#94 Jul 05 2011 at 8:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's called "marketing to idiocy". But what the hell, right?

Now that we've agreed that your friend is an idiot, you should stop using his retarded actions as a reference for the right way to do things.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#95 Jul 05 2011 at 8:31 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It's cute watching Gbaji try to lecture about how to cook steak.

To be fair, I happen to prefer cooking it with a constant heat source the way Gbaji does. But I also like my steaks marinated and well done, which is a crime against humanity to most people. There are more reasons to cook meat than just staving off salmonella.
#96 Jul 05 2011 at 8:33 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
The only time I cook a steak all the way through is if I'm making fajitas. I don't want red juices making my tortillas fall apart.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#97 Jul 05 2011 at 8:40 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Rawer meat simply tastes gummy to me, and I don't enjoy the texture at all.
#98 Jul 05 2011 at 8:56 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
I think the taste of rarer meat is better, but I have serious texture issues with some foods. I don't like it leathery, of course, but I don't really enjoy when meat is less than medium. The better flavor does make up for how unpleasant it is to chew.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#99 Jul 05 2011 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Allegory wrote:
To be fair, I happen to prefer cooking it with a constant heat source the way Gbaji does. But I also like my steaks marinated and well done, which is a crime against humanity to most people. There are more reasons to cook meat than just staving off salmonella.

I wouldn't give someone crap for liking their steak well done. I'm just laughing at all the misguided notions in his lectures. Then again, if someone asked me how to properly make a pizza with chicken, artichokes and white sauce I'd probably get all the details wrong as well.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Jul 05 2011 at 9:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Allegory wrote:
Or you can use two different heats, a high temperature to sear and then a low temperature to finish off as is extremely common.


There is literally no reason to do this. Or, if you do want to do this, you should do it the other way around (searing the outside after cooking the inside evenly if you want a more crusty outside). Cooking a steak on a surface hot enough to sear the outside quickly is just wrong every time.

Quote:
Searing a meat first is a different technique. There is a slight moisture loss traded to result in a very different flavor due to caramelization and the Maillard reaction that cannot be achieved by using a constant temperature.


That's simply not true. The same Maillard reaction occurs at temperatures far far lower than that typically used to "sear" steak. We're really arguing about doing the same thing, but in different ways. As the moisture is evaporated from the meat, is creates a carmelized layer in the meat. That occurs whether you sear the outside at a high temperature (450+ degrees), or do so slower at a lower temperature (like 300-350).

The difference? The slower cooking method results in more gradual moistening layers of meat from outside to inside. Instead of a thin layer of very flavorful (but dry and usually "crispy") outer shell, you get a thicker layer of moist *and* flavorful meat. Do it right and you get that same carmelized flavor nearly all the way through, but without the "crust" effect. The reason is because instead of trying to suddenly evaporate all the water from the surface of the meat all at once, you are gradually and constantly evaporating the moisture from the entire steak over time.

Quote:
The idea that is in any way the wrong way to cook meat is completely ridiculous.



Want me to start linking to the sheer volume of sites which support what I'm saying? The one link in opposition to me is pretty much the one link that disagrees. Pretty much ever food expert agrees that searing doesn't seal in juices. It adds to flavor, which certainly matters if you're going to continue cooking something at a lower temperature later (like baking, or putting meat into a sauce), but if you're going to grill a steak anyway you are going to carmelize the outer portions of the meat. When it turns brown, that's what has happened. The same flavor is there whether you sear it or not.


Honestly, the only difference is the texture. Searing makes the outer surface hard and dry. Cooking the whole steak slower and lower will brown the steak, releasing the same flavor, but not dry out any portion of it. That's why it's a superior method to cooking steak. Those who argue otherwise are just plain wrong. Cause I said so! :)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#101 Jul 05 2011 at 9:13 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,119 posts
My dad always cooked his steaks "Joph's" way and honestly I think it is awesome. Then again I won't shy away from steak tartare.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 191 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (191)