Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the esoteric
theory about supposedly how searing
1) doesn't make any difference
2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric reasons.

and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once again,
immediately after once again having proof of searing effects in my pan -

Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth consistently fails
the engineering test here on the range.

One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and waiting to
trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today, occurred on Tuesday eve:

- I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot oil, med
hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower the heat and do 4-5
min, and then cook it at the lower heat about 6 min a side back and forth
until I think it is done.
Then, because it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but less
disturbing than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor
defrosting -especially frozen- with-bone chops).

a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the cut and
into the (up til then) residue free pan,
a1) leaving pan residue.

The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid cooks) do
not let out juice when cut.
b) My kid's meats (same stove, same pan, same lower temp, same amount of
pink) do not drain when cut.
b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated drained juice in
the pan deposited throughout the process.

Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's are the
same light pink but dry.

Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.

So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a valid
protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but rather available
juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but rather available juice.

Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you all for
the therapy....

----------------
One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific understanding was in his
phrase - "a million experiments can prove me right - but it only takes one
to prove me wrong."

It's all in the protocol, baby.

FWIW.

-- wrote on 12 May 2005 in rec.food.cooking

> Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the
> esoteric theory about supposedly how searing
> 1) doesn't make any difference
> 2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric
> reasons.
>
> and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once
> again, immediately after once again having proof of searing
> effects in my pan -
>
> Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth
> consistently fails the engineering test here on the range.
>
> One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and
> waiting to
> trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today, occurred on
> Tuesday eve:
>
> - I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot
> oil, med hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower
> the heat and do 4-5 min, and then cook it at the lower heat about
> 6 min a side back and forth until I think it is done.
> Then, because it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but
> less
> disturbing than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor
> defrosting -especially frozen- with-bone chops).
>
> a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the
> cut and into the (up til then) residue free pan,
> a1) leaving pan residue.
>
> The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid
> cooks) do
> not let out juice when cut.
> b) My kid's meats (same stove, same pan, same lower temp, same
> amount of pink) do not drain when cut.
> b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated drained
> juice in the pan deposited throughout the process.
>
> Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's
> are the same light pink but dry.
>
> Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.
>
> So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a
> valid protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but
> rather available juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but
> rather available juice.
>
> Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you
> all for the therapy....
>
> ----------------
> One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific understanding
> was in his phrase - "a million experiments can prove me right -
> but it only takes one to prove me wrong."
>
> It's all in the protocol, baby.
>
> FWIW.
>
>
>

Sear doesn't keep in the juices...what it does is produce nice (I
believe the correct term is 'Fond') crunchy bits that improve the
flavour of sauces and burns the sugar on the meat surface (maillard
reaction <SP>) which adds nice complex flavours to the meat.

--
No Bread Crumbs were hurt in the making of this Meal.
Type 2 Diabetic Since Aug 2004
1AC- 7.2, 7.3, 5.5, 5.6 mmol
Weight from 265 down to 219 lbs. and dropping.
Continuing to be Manitoban

"Monsur Fromage du Pollet" > wrote in message
...
: -- wrote on 12 May 2005 in rec.food.cooking
:
: > Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the
: > esoteric theory about supposedly how searing
: > 1) doesn't make any difference
: > 2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric
: > reasons.
: >
: > and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once
: > again, immediately after once again having proof of searing
: > effects in my pan -
: >
: > Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth
: > consistently fails the engineering test here on the range.
: >
: > One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and
: > waiting to
: > trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today, occurred on
: > Tuesday eve:
: >
: > - I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot
: > oil, med hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower
: > the heat and do 4-5 min, and then cook it at the lower heat about
: > 6 min a side back and forth until I think it is done.
: > Then, because it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but
: > less
: > disturbing than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor
: > defrosting -especially frozen- with-bone chops).
: >
: > a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the
: > cut and into the (up til then) residue free pan,
: > a1) leaving pan residue.
: >
: > The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid
: > cooks) do
: > not let out juice when cut.
: > b) My kid's meats (same stove, same pan, same lower temp, same
: > amount of pink) do not drain when cut.
: > b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated drained
: > juice in the pan deposited throughout the process.
: >
: > Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's
: > are the same light pink but dry.
: >
: > Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.
: >
: > So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a
: > valid protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but
: > rather available juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but
: > rather available juice.
: >
: > Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you
: > all for the therapy....
: >
: > ----------------
: > One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific understanding
: > was in his phrase - "a million experiments can prove me right -
: > but it only takes one to prove me wrong."
: >
: > It's all in the protocol, baby.
: >
: > FWIW.
: >
: >
: >
:
: Sear doesn't keep in the juices...what it does is produce nice (I
: believe the correct term is 'Fond') crunchy bits that improve the
: flavour of sauces and burns the sugar on the meat surface (maillard
: reaction <SP>) which adds nice complex flavours to the meat.
:
: --
but that is not what <dehoberg> has found. He seems to have conducted a valid
experiment and found, using his method, that searing keeps in the juices (that
produce the fonds) from escaping.
And where does the sugar come from to partake in the Maillard reaction?
cheers
Wazza ;?)

"--" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the esoteric
> theory about supposedly how searing
> 1) doesn't make any difference
> 2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric reasons.
>
> and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once again,
> immediately after once again having proof of searing effects in my pan -
>
> Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth consistently fails
> the engineering test here on the range.
>
> One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and waiting to
> trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today, occurred on Tuesday
> eve:
>
> - I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot oil,
> med
> hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower the heat and do
> 4-5
> min, and then cook it at the lower heat about 6 min a side back and forth
> until I think it is done.
> Then, because it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but less
> disturbing than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor
> defrosting -especially frozen- with-bone chops).
>
> a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the cut and
> into the (up til then) residue free pan,
> a1) leaving pan residue.
>
> The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid cooks)
> do
> not let out juice when cut.
> b) My kid's meats (same stove, same pan, same lower temp, same amount of
> pink) do not drain when cut.
> b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated drained juice in
> the pan deposited throughout the process.
>
> Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's are the
> same light pink but dry.
>
> Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.
>
> So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a valid
> protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but rather available
> juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but rather available juice.
>
> Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you all for
> the therapy....
>
> ----------------
> One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific understanding was in
> his
> phrase - "a million experiments can prove me right - but it only takes one
> to prove me wrong."
>
> It's all in the protocol, baby.
>
> FWIW.
>
If juice leaks out there will be a weight loss equal to the weight of the
lost juice. Perhaps the difference is only one of perception. When cooked
at high heat, the water is evaporated from the juice at the pan/meat
interface and the residue is deposited on the pan and the meat. When cooked
at lower heat, the liquid escapes from the interface. In either case, mass
is lost from the meat.

Likewise, when cooked with high heat there is a much larger thermal
gradient, causing the juice to be forced to the center where it gushes out
when cut, but a lower heat allows it to remain in equilibrium and not gush
out. If the high heat case is allowed to rest for 10 or 15 minutes, the
temperature gradient is reduced and the juice no longer gushes out.

Thanks for playing. If there is no weight difference there is no difference
in juice lost. Even Alton Brown did a show on it.

del
>

Del Cecchi wrote:

> I
>
> Likewise, when cooked with high heat there is a much larger thermal
> gradient, causing the juice to be forced to the center where it gushes out
> when cut, but a lower heat allows it to remain in equilibrium and not gush
> out. If the high heat case is allowed to rest for 10 or 15 minutes, the
> temperature gradient is reduced and the juice no longer gushes out.
>
> Thanks for playing. If there is no weight difference there is no difference
> in juice lost. Even Alton Brown did a show on it.
>

From my experience, it tastes better and is juicier if seared first. That is
the way I have got the bet results.

-- wrote:
> Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the esoteric
> theory about supposedly how searing
> 1) doesn't make any difference
> 2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric reasons.

Nothing esoteric about it. Simple biology and physics. *No cooking
process* seals juices in meat.

> and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once again,
> immediately after once again having proof of searing effects in my pan -
>
> Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth consistently fails
> the engineering test here on the range.

Read Harold McGee's book "On Food and Cooking: the Science and Lore of
the Kitchen" for full, detailed science.

The biology of protein explains what happens when meat is cooked. Your
high heat denatured the surface protein more fully and caused it to more
fully surrender captive water-based juices and rendered fats. The meats
cooked at lower temperatures didn't have their proteins so fully cooked,
so retained their juices more fully. Leakage of juices is an indication
of degree of doneness, and that yours that leaked juice was more cooked
than theirs that didn't.

Frying in oil will cause the surface of the meat to rapidly rise above
the boiling point of water so internal juices won't reach the pan;
they'll be both cooked onto the surface of the meat and evaporated.

The degree of doneness of the meat will be the determinant of juiciness.
Your more cooked outside surrendered more juices to the pan and the
surface of the meat in creating the Maillard effects of browning. If the
meat sizzled while you were cooking it, it means that juices were being
purged and cooked.

The protein myosin begins contracting at about 120°F and squeezes water
out. Up between 140°F and 150°F, the meat will release much more juice
when the cellular collagen denatures, shrinks and exerts pressure on the
fluid-filled cells inside them. At that point, meats will lose up to 1/6
of their volume and begin to dry. This is approximately medium.

The explanation and accompanying illustrations are more than I'm willing
to type in here, but Dr. McGee devotes a good amount of space - several
pages - to explain what happens to meat when it cooks.

My experience in experimenting in all my restaurants with beef, pork,
lamb, game (including lion, hippo, llama, gator, snake, bear, elk, boar,
etc.), poultry (domestic and wild), and goat meats - is that he's right
on the mark. Applies to roasts, steaks, braises, stews and any way to
cook meats.

Pastorio

> One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and waiting to
> trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today, occurred on Tuesday eve:
>
> - I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot oil, med
> hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower the heat and do 4-5
> min, and then cook it at the lower heat about 6 min a side back and forth
> until I think it is done.
> Then, because it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but less
> disturbing than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor
> defrosting -especially frozen- with-bone chops).
>
> a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the cut and
> into the (up til then) residue free pan,
> a1) leaving pan residue.
>
> The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid cooks) do
> not let out juice when cut.
> b) My kid's meats (same stove, same pan, same lower temp, same amount of
> pink) do not drain when cut.
> b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated drained juice in
> the pan deposited throughout the process.
>
> Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's are the
> same light pink but dry.
>
> Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.
>
> So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a valid
> protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but rather available
> juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but rather available juice.
>
> Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you all for
> the therapy....
>
> ----------------
> One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific understanding was in his
> phrase - "a million experiments can prove me right - but it only takes one
> to prove me wrong."
>
> It's all in the protocol, baby.
>
> FWIW.
>
>

Del Cecchi wrote:
> "--" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the
>> esoteric theory about supposedly how searing 1) doesn't make any
>> difference 2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of
>> esoteric reasons.
>>
>> and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once
>> again, immediately after once again having proof of searing effects
>> in my pan -
>>
>> Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth
>> consistently fails the engineering test here on the range.
>>
>> One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and
>> waiting to trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today,
>> occurred on Tuesday eve:
>>
>> - I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot
>> oil, med hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower
>> the heat and do 4-5 min, and then cook it at the lower heat about 6
>> min a side back and forth until I think it is done. Then, because
>> it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but less disturbing
>> than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor defrosting
>> -especially frozen- with-bone chops).
>>
>> a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the
>> cut and into the (up til then) residue free pan, a1) leaving pan
>> residue.
>>
>> The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid
>> cooks) do not let out juice when cut. b) My kid's meats (same
>> stove, same pan, same lower temp, same amount of pink) do not drain
>> when cut. b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated
>> drained juice in the pan deposited throughout the process.
>>
>> Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's
>> are the same light pink but dry.
>>
>> Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.
>>
>> So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a
>> valid protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but rather
>> available juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but rather
>> available juice.
>>
>> Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you
>> all for the therapy....
>>
>> ---------------- One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific
>> understanding was in his phrase - "a million experiments can prove
>> me right - but it only takes one to prove me wrong."
>>
>> It's all in the protocol, baby.
>>
>> FWIW.
>>
>
> If juice leaks out there will be a weight loss equal to the weight of
> the lost juice. Perhaps the difference is only one of perception.
> When cooked at high heat, the water is evaporated from the juice at
> the pan/meat interface and the residue is deposited on the pan and
> the meat. When cooked at lower heat, the liquid escapes from the
> interface. In either case, mass is lost from the meat.

But you hit on a significant feature below. The surface and near-surface
area of meats cooked at higher temperatures lose significantly more
moisture than low-temp meats.

> Likewise, when cooked with high heat there is a much larger thermal
> gradient, causing the juice to be forced to the center

Juices aren't forced to the center. It only seems that way because the
sharp thermal gradient above 120° also extends into the meat further
than meat with a lower surface temperature, and if it gets beyond 140°,
the purge is materially increased. The proteins release their juices
inside the meat so it seems to be juicier when in fact the apparent
juices have already been released from their protein containers. The
juice hasn't made it's way to the surface yet, but it will.

High temp meats will purge more in the resting time than low-temp meats.

> where it gushes out when cut, but a lower heat allows it to remain in
> equilibrium and not gush out. If the high heat case is allowed to
> rest for 10 or 15 minutes, the temperature gradient is reduced and
> the juice no longer gushes out.

No gush. But it will leak out or "purge" as the trade describes it much
more than the low-temp cook.

> Thanks for playing. If there is no weight difference there is no
> difference in juice lost. Even Alton Brown did a show on it.

Pastorio

Bob (this one) wrote:

> > Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth
consistently fails
> > the engineering test here on the range.
>
> Read Harold McGee's book "On Food and Cooking: the Science and Lore
of
> the Kitchen" for full, detailed science.


See also Alton Brown's experiment which confirmed McGee's results. I
tend to believe them.



Brian

"Bob (this one)" > said:

>Frying in oil will cause the surface of the meat to rapidly rise above
>the boiling point of water so internal juices won't reach the pan;
>they'll be both cooked onto the surface of the meat and evaporated.

THANK YOU! My steaks almost always bubble away when I cook them, even in a
cast iron skillet with high heat.

Carol

"Damsel" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob (this one)" > said:
>
>>Frying in oil will cause the surface of the meat to rapidly rise above
>>the boiling point of water so internal juices won't reach the pan;
>>they'll be both cooked onto the surface of the meat and evaporated.
>
> THANK YOU! My steaks almost always bubble away when I cook them, even in
> a
> cast iron skillet with high heat.
>
> Carol

An important step that some people forget is to pat the meat dry with paper
towels just before putting in the pan. I actually like to let a steal sit on
paper towels for 10-15 min before cooking to absorb as much moisture as
possible. Then just before cooking I rub a thin layer of oil (canola,
peanut, etc) on both sides of the meat and put it in a cast iron pan that
has been heated to the max. Once the crust has formed on the bottom - a
minute or 2 - I flip it and put the pan in a 500 degree oven until it is
done.


--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

"Peter Aitken" > said:

>An important step that some people forget is to pat the meat dry with paper
>towels just before putting in the pan. I actually like to let a steal sit on
>paper towels for 10-15 min before cooking to absorb as much moisture as
>possible. Then just before cooking I rub a thin layer of oil (canola,
>peanut, etc) on both sides of the meat and put it in a cast iron pan that
>has been heated to the max. Once the crust has formed on the bottom - a
>minute or 2 - I flip it and put the pan in a 500 degree oven until it is
>done.

I'm taping this to my fridge.

Thanks!
Carol

One time on Usenet, said:
> "Peter Aitken" > said:
>
> >An important step that some people forget is to pat the meat dry with paper
> >towels just before putting in the pan. I actually like to let a steal sit on
> >paper towels for 10-15 min before cooking to absorb as much moisture as
> >possible. Then just before cooking I rub a thin layer of oil (canola,
> >peanut, etc) on both sides of the meat and put it in a cast iron pan that
> >has been heated to the max. Once the crust has formed on the bottom - a
> >minute or 2 - I flip it and put the pan in a 500 degree oven until it is
> >done.
>
> I'm taping this to my fridge.
>
> Thanks!

Thanks from me as well, Peter -- I put it in my "must try" file.
I already cook steaks in cast iron, but didn't know about drying
the meat or rubbing with oil...

--
Jani in WA ~ mom, vid gamer, novice cook ~

"Del Cecchi" > wrote in message
...

> Likewise, when cooked with high heat there is a much larger thermal
> gradient, causing the juice to be forced to the center where it gushes out
> when cut, but a lower heat allows it to remain in equilibrium and not gush
> out. If the high heat case is allowed to rest for 10 or 15 minutes, the
> temperature gradient is reduced and the juice no longer gushes out.

I've found that the higher the heat, the more the meat 'tenses' up too, and
that seems to lock more liquid in the centre of the meat. Indeed, it does
appear that it dissipates and seeps if the meat is given time to relax
before being cut, but onto the plate instead of into the pan.

If meat is being seared for a stew or similar, in the same pot it is going
to be stewed in, IMO, the only difference searing then makes, is to flavour
and texture.


Shaun aRe




Shaun aRe

Wazza wrote:
> "Monsur Fromage du Pollet" > wrote in message
> ...
> : -- wrote on 12 May 2005 in rec.food.cooking
> :
> : > Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the
> : > esoteric theory about supposedly how searing
> : > 1) doesn't make any difference
> : > 2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric
> : > reasons.
> : >
> : > and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once
> : > again, immediately after once again having proof of searing
> : > effects in my pan -
> : >
> : > Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth
> : > consistently fails the engineering test here on the range.
> : >
> : > One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and
> : > waiting to
> : > trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today, occurred on
> : > Tuesday eve:
> : >
> : > - I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot
> : > oil, med hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower
> : > the heat and do 4-5 min, and then cook it at the lower heat about
> : > 6 min a side back and forth until I think it is done.
> : > Then, because it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but
> : > less
> : > disturbing than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor
> : > defrosting -especially frozen- with-bone chops).
> : >
> : > a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the
> : > cut and into the (up til then) residue free pan,
> : > a1) leaving pan residue.
> : >
> : > The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid
> : > cooks) do
> : > not let out juice when cut.
> : > b) My kid's meats (same stove, same pan, same lower temp, same
> : > amount of pink) do not drain when cut.
> : > b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated drained
> : > juice in the pan deposited throughout the process.
> : >
> : > Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's
> : > are the same light pink but dry.
> : >
> : > Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.
> : >
> : > So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a
> : > valid protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but
> : > rather available juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but
> : > rather available juice.
> : >
> : > Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you
> : > all for the therapy....
> : >
> : > ----------------
> : > One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific understanding
> : > was in his phrase - "a million experiments can prove me right -
> : > but it only takes one to prove me wrong."
> : >
> : > It's all in the protocol, baby.
> : >
> : > FWIW.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> :
> : Sear doesn't keep in the juices...what it does is produce nice (I
> : believe the correct term is 'Fond') crunchy bits that improve the
> : flavour of sauces and burns the sugar on the meat surface (maillard
> : reaction <SP>) which adds nice complex flavours to the meat.
> :
> : --
> but that is not what <dehoberg> has found. He seems to have conducted a valid
> experiment and found, using his method, that searing keeps in the juices (that
> produce the fonds) from escaping.

He has conducted a reasonable experiment and then misinterpreted the
results. It happens all the time.

> And where does the sugar come from to partake in the Maillard reaction?

Glucose.

Best regards,
Bob

Shaun aRe wrote:
> "Del Cecchi" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Likewise, when cooked with high heat there is a much larger thermal
>>gradient, causing the juice to be forced to the center where it gushes out
>>when cut, but a lower heat allows it to remain in equilibrium and not gush
>>out. If the high heat case is allowed to rest for 10 or 15 minutes, the
>>temperature gradient is reduced and the juice no longer gushes out.
>
>
> I've found that the higher the heat, the more the meat 'tenses' up too, and
> that seems to lock more liquid in the centre of the meat.

That's not the mechanism at work. The meat has reached a high enough
temperature that the proteins (several different types) have cooked
enough to surrender captive water. It's not that it's been forced to the
center, it was always there, but captive by the protein. It's that it's
now being released and will make its way to the surface to either
evaporate in the pan or glaze the meat surface by what else it's
transporting, like glucose that will be a significant part of the
Maillard reactions.

> Indeed, it does
> appear that it dissipates and seeps if the meat is given time to relax
> before being cut, but onto the plate instead of into the pan.

It happens all through the cooking process. It's just more obvious on
the plate. In the pan, it disappears quickly. On hte plate, it just
keeps increasing as leakage ("purge" to the trade) continues.

> If meat is being seared for a stew or similar, in the same pot it is going
> to be stewed in, IMO, the only difference searing then makes, is to flavour
> and texture.

Exactly.

Pastorio

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...

> He has conducted a reasonable experiment and then misinterpreted the
> results. It happens all the time.

For our edification, where is the error that you noted, please?


> Wazza wrote:
> > "Monsur Fromage du Pollet" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > : -- wrote on 12 May 2005 in rec.food.cooking
> > :
> > : > Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the
> > : > esoteric theory about supposedly how searing
> > : > 1) doesn't make any difference
> > : > 2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric
> > : > reasons.
> > : >
> > : > and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once
> > : > again, immediately after once again having proof of searing
> > : > effects in my pan -
> > : >
> > : > Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth
> > : > consistently fails the engineering test here on the range.
> > : >
> > : > One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and
> > : > waiting to
> > : > trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today, occurred on
> > : > Tuesday eve:
> > : >
> > : > - I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot
> > : > oil, med hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower
> > : > the heat and do 4-5 min, and then cook it at the lower heat about
> > : > 6 min a side back and forth until I think it is done.
> > : > Then, because it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but
> > : > less
> > : > disturbing than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor
> > : > defrosting -especially frozen- with-bone chops).
> > : >
> > : > a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the
> > : > cut and into the (up til then) residue free pan,
> > : > a1) leaving pan residue.
> > : >
> > : > The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid
> > : > cooks) do
> > : > not let out juice when cut.
> > : > b) My kid's meats (same stove, same pan, same lower temp, same
> > : > amount of pink) do not drain when cut.
> > : > b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated drained
> > : > juice in the pan deposited throughout the process.
> > : >
> > : > Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's
> > : > are the same light pink but dry.
> > : >
> > : > Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.
> > : >
> > : > So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a
> > : > valid protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but
> > : > rather available juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but
> > : > rather available juice.
> > : >
> > : > Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you
> > : > all for the therapy....
> > : >
> > : > ----------------
> > : > One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific understanding
> > : > was in his phrase - "a million experiments can prove me right -
> > : > but it only takes one to prove me wrong."
> > : >
> > : > It's all in the protocol, baby.
> > : >
> > : > FWIW.
> > : >
> > : >
> > : >
> > :
> > : Sear doesn't keep in the juices...what it does is produce nice (I
> > : believe the correct term is 'Fond') crunchy bits that improve the
> > : flavour of sauces and burns the sugar on the meat surface (maillard
> > : reaction <SP>) which adds nice complex flavours to the meat.
> > :
> > : --
> > but that is not what <dehoberg> has found. He seems to have conducted a
valid
> > experiment and found, using his method, that searing keeps in the juices
(that
> > produce the fonds) from escaping.
>
>
> > And where does the sugar come from to partake in the Maillard reaction?
>
> Glucose.
>
> Best regards,
> Bob

>Thanks for playing. If there is no weight difference there is no
difference
>in juice lost. Even Alton Brown did a show on it.

The criterion has not been if weight is lost, it is whether the meat is
jucier.

It is a fallacy to assume loss of fluid = lack of "juiciness"

E,g., leaving the milk on my cereal for twenty minutes makes the cereal less
juicy, but yet no weight is lost.

"Del Cecchi" > wrote in message
...
>
> "--" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the
esoteric
> > theory about supposedly how searing
> > 1) doesn't make any difference
> > 2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric reasons.
> >
> > and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once again,
> > immediately after once again having proof of searing effects in my pan -
> >
> > Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth consistently
fails
> > the engineering test here on the range.
> >
> > One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and waiting
to
> > trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today, occurred on Tuesday
> > eve:
> >
> > - I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot oil,
> > med
> > hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower the heat and do
> > 4-5
> > min, and then cook it at the lower heat about 6 min a side back and
forth
> > until I think it is done.
> > Then, because it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but less
> > disturbing than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor
> > defrosting -especially frozen- with-bone chops).
> >
> > a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the cut
and
> > into the (up til then) residue free pan,
> > a1) leaving pan residue.
> >
> > The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid cooks)
> > do
> > not let out juice when cut.
> > b) My kid's meats (same stove, same pan, same lower temp, same amount
of
> > pink) do not drain when cut.
> > b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated drained juice
in
> > the pan deposited throughout the process.
> >
> > Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's are the
> > same light pink but dry.
> >
> > Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.
> >
> > So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a valid
> > protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but rather available
> > juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but rather available juice.
> >
> > Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you all
for
> > the therapy....
> >
> > ----------------
> > One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific understanding was in
> > his
> > phrase - "a million experiments can prove me right - but it only takes
one
> > to prove me wrong."
> >
> > It's all in the protocol, baby.
> >
> > FWIW.
> >
> If juice leaks out there will be a weight loss equal to the weight of the
> lost juice. Perhaps the difference is only one of perception. When
cooked
> at high heat, the water is evaporated from the juice at the pan/meat
> interface and the residue is deposited on the pan and the meat. When
cooked
> at lower heat, the liquid escapes from the interface. In either case,
mass
> is lost from the meat.
>
> Likewise, when cooked with high heat there is a much larger thermal
> gradient, causing the juice to be forced to the center where it gushes out
> when cut, but a lower heat allows it to remain in equilibrium and not gush
> out. If the high heat case is allowed to rest for 10 or 15 minutes, the
> temperature gradient is reduced and the juice no longer gushes out.
>
> Thanks for playing. If there is no weight difference there is no
difference
> in juice lost. Even Alton Brown did a show on it.
>
> del
> >
>
>

"--" > wrote in message
...
> >Thanks for playing. If there is no weight difference there is no
> difference
>>in juice lost. Even Alton Brown did a show on it.
>
> The criterion has not been if weight is lost, it is whether the meat is
> jucier.
>
> It is a fallacy to assume loss of fluid = lack of "juiciness"
>
> E,g., leaving the milk on my cereal for twenty minutes makes the cereal
> less
> juicy, but yet no weight is lost.

As the cereal sits in the milk it becomes more juicy. think about it..

I know exactly why, scientifically, my meats retain juice when seared. And
they definitely do.

I also know why the experiments done on TV and elsewhere will always
"prove" there is no difference between searing and not, even though there is
a difference. And they can be duplicated to "prove" there is no difference.
They are not unusual in that respect -which only demonstrates why properly
done peer review is so important.

They fail to show the difference because they do not understand the
release and the transport mechanism of the fluid to the surface, or they
fail to recognize it and take advantage of it.

(see below)

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> -- wrote:
> > Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the
esoteric
> > theory about supposedly how searing
> > 1) doesn't make any difference
> > 2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric reasons.
>
> Nothing esoteric about it. Simple biology and physics. *No cooking
> process* seals juices in meat.

1) Which ones do not ?
Point of my comment here is that you do not have an all-inclusive list to
make such a broad statement with any validity. What you know and what you
have seen demonstrates to you that there is the lack of differnce, but that
cannot be extended to the logic that one does not exist.

2) Which mechanisms do seal juice in meat?
Point of my statement here is that since you do NOT have used the ones
that do, that does not mean it does not exist, it only means you lack
knowledge of such mechanism. If you had one, then you would adopt the new
conclusion and reject the old.

I do believe there are several that do exactly the sealing in in non-pan
conditions-e.g., that deep frying chicken in batter and under pressure has
been shown to seal in water. And at least one that does it in a pan.

3) "Physics" says that if the surface is made impervious to liquid, liquid
does not pass. So how to make it impervious? Lock the surface fibers
closed.

How to lock fibers closed? By sufficient heat (physics heat, not
temperature "heat") delivered to the external cells to swell them, rupture
them, and bind their proteins into a new oil-saturated matrix. This
rematrixing is not a foreign process at all.
(Note, however, that if I slow-sear, that is, sear with insufficient heat
Q to not rupture, I only shrink the cells as their water is "weeped" out. So
I must deliver sufficient Q heat to rupture rather than shrink, or I have
left the gate open )
And oil impregnation of a matrix to prevent water passing thru the matrix
is one of the most common forms of oil use. (called grease, a matrix of
fiber and "oil")

4) Next, meat does not have liquid sloshing around inside. It has it
trapped in cells, fact.
It will remain in cells until some mechanism releases it, fact.
If it is not release it from the cells, it will not leave. Logic.
If I establish a non-linear temperature gradient such that the interior
lacks the heat to release liquid from the cells during the time the cells
are enclosed on an oil-impregnated matrix, AND the liquid will not have
time to reach (transport to) the exterior matix, I will have the juice at
serving time.
(For the lay reader, that means that you can heat it fast enough to raise
the interior temp and if you take appropriate steps, you will not lose water
because the liquid lacks the time from release from the cell to transit out
of the more-impervious-by-searing meat.
But if you cook it below some rate of heat transfer into the cells
holding moisture, the moisture will have more time to leave before the
process is done.
So then for some range of heat transfer, surface and internal, searing
and non-searing will have no difference on liquid left, and all experiments
done below that rate of transfer will show no difference in the methods)

5) The rate of the fluid passing thru the fibers depends on the viscosity of
water, capillary action, gravity, and pressure. The "thinner" the water, the
more rapid the transfer. (water at 55F is half as viscous as water at 45F.
HALF as "thick")
Destroy the capillary paths by establishing a non-capillary matrix on the
surface, transfer by surface tension is reduced.
Lower the viscosity by having a cooler fluid barrier, the transfer rate of
the thicker fluid drops.
E.g., use a thick piece of meat and turn it over immediately before the
liquid gathers on the interior of the matrix at the bottom, you will have
the transfer time back thru the meat before it will reach the matrix on the
other side and leave the meat. Keep ahead of the fluid flow by gravity, and
the fluid stays in.
If the searing barrier does not exist, it will leave by capillary action
in the fibers in the tissue and not pool so that "ahead of the flow" effect
can be used.

I can "sear" meat and have it lose water, and I can "sear " meat and have
it not lose water.
That concept of one experimenter able to set up an experiment germaine
to the issue after many other have failed is the core of experiments on
things not available -

in other words, if you can't do it, and your experiments have not shown it
can be done, the reverse is not proven - i.e., such experiments do not prove
it can't be done.

And when you find another experiemnt that shows it, that only means you
did not know well enough of the mechanism.
When you see an experiment by others that shows it happening, that not
only means it can work, it means you will need to change your conclusion.

>
> > and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once again,
> > immediately after once again having proof of searing effects in my pan -
> >
> > Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth consistently
fails
> > the engineering test here on the range.
>
> Read Harold McGee's book "On Food and Cooking: the Science and Lore of
> the Kitchen" for full, detailed science.
>

read it.
It has not undergone peer review, so while it is a point of view, and
much of it is appears valid and makes sense as the sun being the center of
the universe and phlogiston made sense and subatomic particles beign the
smallest things made sense, it is hardly "full, detailed science"


the information relayed below is excellent and valid in its application.

> The biology of protein explains what happens when meat is cooked. Your
> high heat denatured the surface protein more fully and caused it to more
> fully surrender captive water-based juices and rendered fats. The meats
> cooked at lower temperatures didn't have their proteins so fully cooked,
> so retained their juices more fully. Leakage of juices is an indication
> of degree of doneness, and that yours that leaked juice was more cooked
> than theirs that didn't.
>
> Frying in oil will cause the surface of the meat to rapidly rise above
> the boiling point of water so internal juices won't reach the pan;
> they'll be both cooked onto the surface of the meat and evaporated.
>
> The degree of doneness of the meat will be the determinant of juiciness.
> Your more cooked outside surrendered more juices to the pan and the
> surface of the meat in creating the Maillard effects of browning. If the
> meat sizzled while you were cooking it, it means that juices were being
> purged and cooked.
>
> The protein myosin begins contracting at about 120°F and squeezes water
> out. Up between 140°F and 150°F, the meat will release much more juice
> when the cellular collagen denatures, shrinks and exerts pressure on the
> fluid-filled cells inside them. At that point, meats will lose up to 1/6
> of their volume and begin to dry. This is approximately medium.
>
> The explanation and accompanying illustrations are more than I'm willing
> to type in here, but Dr. McGee devotes a good amount of space - several
> pages - to explain what happens to meat when it cooks.
>
> My experience in experimenting in all my restaurants with beef, pork,
> lamb, game (including lion, hippo, llama, gator, snake, bear, elk, boar,
> etc.), poultry (domestic and wild), and goat meats - is that he's right
> on the mark. Applies to roasts, steaks, braises, stews and any way to
> cook meats.
>
> Pastorio
>
> > One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and waiting
to
> > trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today, occurred on Tuesday
eve:
> >
> > - I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot oil,
med
> > hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower the heat and do
4-5
> > min, and then cook it at the lower heat about 6 min a side back and
forth
> > until I think it is done.
> > Then, because it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but less
> > disturbing than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor
> > defrosting -especially frozen- with-bone chops).
> >
> > a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the cut
and
> > into the (up til then) residue free pan,
> > a1) leaving pan residue.
> >
> > The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid
cooks) do
> > not let out juice when cut.
> > b) My kid's meats (same stove, same pan, same lower temp, same amount
of
> > pink) do not drain when cut.
> > b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated drained juice
in
> > the pan deposited throughout the process.
> >
> > Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's are the
> > same light pink but dry.
> >
> > Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.
> >
> > So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a valid
> > protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but rather available
> > juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but rather available juice.
> >
> > Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you all
for
> > the therapy....
> >
> > ----------------
> > One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific understanding was in
his
> > phrase - "a million experiments can prove me right - but it only takes
one
> > to prove me wrong."
> >
> > It's all in the protocol, baby.
> >
> > FWIW.
> >
> >

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "--" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Thanks for playing. If there is no weight difference there is no
> > difference
> >>in juice lost. Even Alton Brown did a show on it.
> >
> > The criterion has not been if weight is lost, it is whether the meat is
> > jucier.
> >
> > It is a fallacy to assume loss of fluid = lack of "juiciness"
> >
> > E,g., leaving the milk on my cereal for twenty minutes makes the cereal
> > less
> > juicy, but yet no weight is lost.
>
> As the cereal sits in the milk it becomes more juicy. think about it..

actually, my cereal does not become more juicy
- the milk becomes less dominant as a free component, the cereal becomes a
soggy mass as the water combines with the flour, and the free liquid is
gone.

My example and your response goes to the heart of the question about a test
for juiciness -
is it about water staying in the fiber,
is it about water sitting between fibers and running out when chewed,
and thus is it really about losing water from the piece of meat or is it
where the juice resides when it remains in the meat?

I hold that juiciness is a measure of the free liquid remaining in the
meat, not the measure of liquid remaining in the meat.



>
>

-- wrote:

> I know exactly why, scientifically, my meats retain juice when seared. And
> they definitely do.

Then no need to discuss it further. Particularly after reading the
material below. I'll just post a note and you may do as you will.

> I also know why the experiments done on TV and elsewhere will always
> "prove" there is no difference between searing and not, even though there is
> a difference. And they can be duplicated to "prove" there is no difference.
> They are not unusual in that respect -which only demonstrates why properly
> done peer review is so important.

String of non sequiturs. Peer review won't overturn the biology and
physics of the process.

> They fail to show the difference because they do not understand the
> release and the transport mechanism of the fluid to the surface,

They don't really need to understand *how* it works, only *if* it works.
But your explanation is wrong.

> or they
> fail to recognize it and take advantage of it.

There's really not much to recognize. The mechanisms are pretty clear.

> (see below)
>
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>-- wrote:
>>
>>>Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the esoteric
>>>theory about supposedly how searing
>>>1) doesn't make any difference
>>>2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric reasons.
>>
>>Nothing esoteric about it. Simple biology and physics. *No cooking
>>process* seals juices in meat.
>
>
> 1) Which ones do not ?
> Point of my comment here is that you do not have an all-inclusive list to
> make such a broad statement with any validity. What you know and what you
> have seen demonstrates to you that there is the lack of differnce, but that
> cannot be extended to the logic that one does not exist.

Given the nature of protein and the effect that heat has on the ones in
meat, it's a safe assertion that no cooking method seals in juices. Heat
applied to protein always shrinks it. Whether wet or dry heat. Whether
high or low heat. Whether oil, water or metal surface. Whether from
above, beneath or all around. Whether at atmospheric pressure or under
pressure in a closed vessel. No known method seals juices in meats as
they cook. All methods cause proteins to shrink and all shrinkage
releases water.

> 2) Which mechanisms do seal juice in meat?
> Point of my statement here is that since you do NOT have used the ones
> that do, that does not mean it does not exist, it only means you lack
> knowledge of such mechanism. If you had one, then you would adopt the new
> conclusion and reject the old.

It means that none exists. The nature of meat proteins is the determinant.

> I do believe there are several that do exactly the sealing in in non-pan
> conditions-e.g., that deep frying chicken in batter and under pressure has
> been shown to seal in water. And at least one that does it in a pan.

Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Frying chicken in batter (a *very*
permeable covering) loses water and that can be shown by weighing the
chicken before battering, and again after cooking and removing batter.
The chicken weighs less. Always. That's why frying chicken sizzles and
sputters. It's water hitting hot oil. Always.

You keep ignoring that sizzling as though it weren't happening. How to
explain it if it isn't water being heated to steam and making noise in
the process?

> 3) "Physics" says that if the surface is made impervious to liquid, liquid
> does not pass. So how to make it impervious? Lock the surface fibers
> closed.

There is no such mechanism. Protein shrinks when cooked. It opens spaces
between cells and protein strands.

> How to lock fibers closed? By sufficient heat (physics heat, not
> temperature "heat") delivered to the external cells to swell them, rupture
> them, and bind their proteins into a new oil-saturated matrix. This
> rematrixing is not a foreign process at all.

Protein absolutely *doesn't* swell when heated. It shrinks and
surrenders its captive water. Oil-saturated matrix, indeed. Nice science
fiction. It doesn't happen. And it assumes that every bit of the surface
is cooked at exactly the same rate to exactly the same finish. Meat
doesn't cook that way. It browns unevenly. And how to include fats in
this formula?

The water coming out of the meat is under pressure. Water is flashing
over to steam while still inside the meat and forcing liquids out onto
the cooking surface - it's sizzling. Water is leaving because protein is
now heated enough to release it. The steam is venting out millions of
cellular openings and pushing oil away.

> (Note, however, that if I slow-sear, that is, sear with insufficient heat
> Q to not rupture, I only shrink the cells as their water is "weeped" out. So
> I must deliver sufficient Q heat to rupture rather than shrink, or I have
> left the gate open )

There's no gate. The cells will shrink *no matter what* heat sufficient
to cook you apply.

> And oil impregnation of a matrix to prevent water passing thru the matrix
> is one of the most common forms of oil use. (called grease, a matrix of
> fiber and "oil")

Right. Except in a kitchen with food where no matrices are formed like
the ones you're talking about. Oil impregnation is absolutely not going
to happen when the oil is hot enough to cause water to flash over to
steam. It pushes the oil out of the food. That's why properly fried food
isn't oily. There is no matrix to impregnate. Grease doesn't need to
include a fiber, it can be entirely chemical. But this is a red herring.
The strands of denatured protein aren't available for the sort of
combination you suggest.

> 4) Next, meat does not have liquid sloshing around inside. It has it
> trapped in cells, fact.

And between cells.

> It will remain in cells until some mechanism releases it, fact.
> If it is not release it from the cells, it will not leave. Logic.
> If I establish a non-linear temperature gradient such that the interior
> lacks the heat to release liquid from the cells during the time the cells
> are enclosed on an oil-impregnated matrix,

There is no such matrix. And there is no such waterproofing going on.
The steak sizzles the whole time it's cooking. It's the water leaving.
This matrix is a nice theory, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. No
one has seen such a matrix in rather concentrated study of these processes.

> AND the liquid will not have
> time to reach (transport to) the exterior matix, I will have the juice at
> serving time.

Nope. Temperature is the absolute determinant of whether the water
leaves the cells. At 120°, the exodus begins - that's already warmer
than rare. When it gets past 140°, or about medium, it's a stampede.
That sizzling you hear when it's cooking is the water leaving. Since
there is no impermeable matrix, the juices leave. To see if it's so, all
that has to be done is to weigh it before and after cooking.

> (For the lay reader, that means that you can heat it fast enough to raise
> the interior temp and if you take appropriate steps, you will not lose water
> because the liquid lacks the time from release from the cell to transit out
> of the more-impervious-by-searing meat.

Your assertion that the route out is impervious to water leaving is
simply incorrect. Meat will sizzle the entire time it's cooking. If the
juices were sealed in, that would stop.

> But if you cook it below some rate of heat transfer into the cells
> holding moisture, the moisture will have more time to leave before the
> process is done.
> So then for some range of heat transfer, surface and internal, searing
> and non-searing will have no difference on liquid left, and all experiments
> done below that rate of transfer will show no difference in the methods)

And what would that temperature be, according to this theory?

> 5) The rate of the fluid passing thru the fibers depends on the viscosity of
> water, capillary action, gravity, and pressure. The "thinner" the water, the
> more rapid the transfer. (water at 55F is half as viscous as water at 45F.
> HALF as "thick")

<LOL> This is kitchen sink discourse. Throw everything in. Some is bound
to stick. Lots of theoretical stuff, but there's a whole lot of
empirical info available that throws it all out.

> Destroy the capillary paths by establishing a non-capillary matrix on the
> surface, transfer by surface tension is reduced.

It might be if this happened. It doesn't.

> Lower the viscosity by having a cooler fluid barrier, the transfer rate of
> the thicker fluid drops.

<LOL> Grasping at straws. Right. As though is the real world, the
viscosity differences will have a material effect on cooking meats.

> E.g., use a thick piece of meat and turn it over immediately before the
> liquid gathers on the interior of the matrix at the bottom, you will have
> the transfer time back thru the meat before it will reach the matrix on the
> other side and leave the meat. Keep ahead of the fluid flow by gravity, and
> the fluid stays in.

Nope. You're assuming that it's passively leaking out when in fact it's
being squeezed out. That's why when cooking a steak on a hot surface,
drops of juices will appear on the top surface. As protein fibers
contract and the meat shrinks, surrendered water will be purged out at
all exposed muscle tissue surfaces.

And this "cooking" technique seems to require X-Ray vision. But, alas,
it doesn't work. Muscle tissue is like a stranded rope. As it's heated,
the individual strands shrink releasing their water. The surface can't
be sealed because it's not a solid surface like a piece of metal.

> If the searing barrier does not exist, it will leave by capillary action
> in the fibers in the tissue and not pool so that "ahead of the flow" effect
> can be used.
> I can "sear" meat and have it lose water, and I can "sear " meat and have
> it not lose water.

Weigh it. Then report back.

> That concept of one experimenter able to set up an experiment germaine
> to the issue after many other have failed is the core of experiments on
> things not available -
>
> in other words, if you can't do it, and your experiments have not shown it
> can be done, the reverse is not proven - i.e., such experiments do not prove
> it can't be done.

But when the physical properties of the materials guarantee that it's
looking like just another kind of perpetual motion machine, it fails by
definition.

> And when you find another experiemnt that shows it, that only means you
> did not know well enough of the mechanism.
> When you see an experiment by others that shows it happening, that not
> only means it can work, it means you will need to change your conclusion.

I'm still waiting for it to happen. After testing hundreds of pieces of
meat over three decades of trying, using essentially every temperature
variation and material, virtually every cut, scrutinizing all possible
cooking techniques, I'm very comfortable with my point here. It's
empirically derived in the face of lots of alternate theories.

I've tried this sealing in business with roasts and steaks. Searing and
not. Oil-cooking and dry roasting. No matter what technique I tried, it
always weighed less after cooking than before. Period. And the loss was
not linear. Steaks cooked "bleu" or to 115 center temp lost least.
Typically around 3 or 4%%. Rare (125) lost about 6%. Medium (145) lost
about 12% Well done (160-165) lost about 18%. Charred well (190) lost
upwards of 25%. Whether pan-seared, charbroiled (heat from beneath),
grilled (steel bars over open flames), broiled (heat from above),
oven-finished, the percentages remained virtually constant.

Roasting beef rounds showed the same sort of numbers. We finally roasted
them all at low temp (205 convection) to 125 internal with no searing.
Of all the single-temp or combination temps, or single technique or
multiple technique approaches we tried, that arrangement yielded the
greatest return. We routinely lost around 9% of initial, trimmed weight.
All roasts were left to warm at room temp for 2 hours or more. Steaks
were cooked from refrigerated temperatures.

All cooked meats were left to rest, although for differing amounts of
time. We found that if meats were cut immediately after being taken from
the heat source, that juices gushed and we lost a significant percentage
of the weight of the meat. But if we waited a short time, they didn't
gush, but flowed gently and with less volume. That's been explained by
suggesting either, that some reversal of protein denaturing is possible,
and that it happens with the cooling that happens during the resting
period. Or, that the juices are leeching to the surfaces that were
heated sufficiently to evaporate their moisture and filling in hte
vacated spaces. Of course, if steaks are left for too long, they lose
juices just in the waiting - on the plate. That pretty much defines a
surface that's distinctly permeable.

It is absolutely in the best interests of restaurateurs for the steaks
to be juicy. And it's been a serious area of professional study - and no
one has been able to seal meat. Period. All these theories just collapse
in the face of biology and physics and empirical results.

>>>and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once again,
>>>immediately after once again having proof of searing effects in my pan -
>>>
>>>Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth consistently fails
>>>the engineering test here on the range.
>>
>>Read Harold McGee's book "On Food and Cooking: the Science and Lore of
>>the Kitchen" for full, detailed science.
>>
> read it.
> It has not undergone peer review,

It has undergone the "review" of thousands and thousands of readers,
many among them food scientists. The revised edition is 20 years after
the first one and in that time, with the explanation that meats can't be
sealed, no one has refuted it. No one has realistically challenged it.
I'd suggest that 14 pages of fine print for the bibliography implies
some serious scholarship, with about 40 references just for the meat
chapter.

> so while it is a point of view, and
> much of it is appears valid and makes sense as the sun being the center of
> the universe and phlogiston made sense and subatomic particles beign the
> smallest things made sense, it is hardly "full, detailed science"

In the new edition, he expands his original discussion of what happens
to meats in cooking. Complete with illustrations and good science to
back it up. It's not a novel, it's a science text based on a huge
bibliography and lots of direct experiments. The Smithsonian invited him
to present material and he's been written about in their magazine. Not
exactly lightweights.

The other reality is that I trust McGee as a commentator and interpreter
because in testing foods and processing for the past 30 years, there's
little that I find to quibble about with his assertions that affect
areas I've functioned in.

> the information relayed below is excellent and valid in its application.

Which information? Yours or mine?

>
>>The biology of protein explains what happens when meat is cooked. Your
>>high heat denatured the surface protein more fully and caused it to more
>>fully surrender captive water-based juices and rendered fats. The meats
>>cooked at lower temperatures didn't have their proteins so fully cooked,
>>so retained their juices more fully. Leakage of juices is an indication
>>of degree of doneness, and that yours that leaked juice was more cooked
>>than theirs that didn't.
>>
>>Frying in oil will cause the surface of the meat to rapidly rise above
>>the boiling point of water so internal juices won't reach the pan;
>>they'll be both cooked onto the surface of the meat and evaporated.
>>
>>The degree of doneness of the meat will be the determinant of juiciness.
>>Your more cooked outside surrendered more juices to the pan and the
>>surface of the meat in creating the Maillard effects of browning. If the
>>meat sizzled while you were cooking it, it means that juices were being
>>purged and cooked.
>>
>>The protein myosin begins contracting at about 120°F and squeezes water
>>out. Up between 140°F and 150°F, the meat will release much more juice
>>when the cellular collagen denatures, shrinks and exerts pressure on the
>>fluid-filled cells inside them. At that point, meats will lose up to 1/6
>>of their volume and begin to dry. This is approximately medium.
>>
>>The explanation and accompanying illustrations are more than I'm willing
>>to type in here, but Dr. McGee devotes a good amount of space - several
>>pages - to explain what happens to meat when it cooks.
>>
>>My experience in experimenting in all my restaurants with beef, pork,
>>lamb, game (including lion, hippo, llama, gator, snake, bear, elk, boar,
>>etc.), poultry (domestic and wild), and goat meats - is that he's right
>>on the mark. Applies to roasts, steaks, braises, stews and any way to
>>cook meats.
>>
>>Pastorio
>>
>>
>>> One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and waiting to
>>>trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today, occurred on Tuesday eve:
>>>- I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot oil, med
>>>hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower the heat and do 4-5
>>>min, and then cook it at the lower heat about 6 min a side back and forth
>>>until I think it is done.
>>> Then, because it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but less
>>>disturbing than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor
>>>defrosting -especially frozen- with-bone chops).
>>>
>>>a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the cut and
>>>into the (up til then) residue free pan,
>>>a1) leaving pan residue.
>>>
>>> The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid cooks) do
>>>not let out juice when cut.
>>>b) My kid's meats (same stove, same pan, same lower temp, same amount of
>>>pink) do not drain when cut.
>>>b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated drained juice in
>>>the pan deposited throughout the process.
>>>
>>>Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's are the
>>>same light pink but dry.
>>>
>>>Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.
>>>
>>>So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a valid
>>>protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but rather available
>>>juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but rather available juice.
>>>
>>>Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you all for
>>>the therapy....
>>>
>>>----------------
>>>One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific understanding was in his
>>>phrase - "a million experiments can prove me right - but it only takes one
>>>to prove me wrong."
>>>
>>> It's all in the protocol, baby.
>>>
>>>FWIW.

I do respect your expertise and empirical observations and citations which
you have laid out so well in your responses. And I fully understand why you
believe what you believe about searing.

However, your extension to theory sometimes juxtaposes elements, and your
belief that an experiment proves a right is misplaced.
(The scientific search is for the replicable experiment that contradicts
present theory, which then leads to scrutiny, real world experience, and
further experiments which will contradict that new theory. From that
discourse and experimentation come advancements in understanding.)

You confuse proteins with cells. And you continually refer to protein .Give
up the protein fixation from a book you read and instead focus on the fat -
and the process becomes clear.

And no, unlike your chop, my chop does NOT sizzle the same thru the
entire time of cooking. I have "fat sizzle" until I cut into it, at which
time I have "water sizzle" -thus the reason for my description as to pan
residue. And apparently yours has the same sizzle throughout, meaning your
process indeed fails to seal.
And your reluctance to accept another method which on the surface appears
to be the same is understandable

(Note that in science, by definition the theory comes from the experiment
applied to a hypothesis, not the other way around. Bad hypothesis and bad
experiment gives bad theory. That is why lack of peer review is NOT a
non-sequitor.
Cooking theory, as it is in all other science, is derived from experiment,
not experiment from theory. Equations come from experiment, not experiment
from equations.
Lay people tend to think that theory comes first and experiment
proves -no, theory is the result of some experiment. Theory which can, and
always may, be proven wrong by a better experiment.
Thus your citing theory derived from the experiment that created the
theory is never accepted - because it is a circular argument. )

1) As to protein:
you state that protein will shrink and thus imply there is no possibility
of the cell releasing water rapidly, even if I deliver heat (Q ) to the cell
sufficiently rapidly to rupture the cell wall by boiling the fluid inside
before it escapes.
Hey, once that cell wall is ruptured, why do I care about protein? It
isn't in the mechanism except as fiber for my oil "varnish".

(Besides, in my organic chemistry books, protein is molecular chain, and
does not "shrink". It breaks into amino acids or convolutes, but heat does
not compress the space between the atoms of the protein molecules. only lack
of heat shrinks a molecule. Check out molecular thermodynamics and electron
levels as to why. )

2) And you miss the main matrix mechanism because you neglect the effects of
fat at high temp.
Try this experiment to demonstrate - put a thin layer of fat in your hot
pan and let it sit for five minutes - hot enough and long enough so that it
oxidizes into a layer akin to varnish. Then try to get water under that
changed-fat (like it in soapy boiling water).
Then do it at a lower temp and put it in soapy boiling water. Fat
releases.

This demonstrates the change in fat for this theory is not linear, and that
fat will create a water-resistant seal if the temp and heat is high enough

Then if you want to do a proper experiment for protein - do it again in
three parts - add protein (for home, like white fish) to the hot hot and
less hot oil in both conditions, and now also include one fish piece cooked
slowly - but this time remove the fish when you think it is done but not
cooked to jerky- equal time for each in the pan, normalized.

Open the fish and confirm visually, and by measuring the fluid released
onto the plate for each.
Do it 33 times for a proper statistical experiment, or use the one
experiment as anecdotal.

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> -- wrote:
>
> > I know exactly why, scientifically, my meats retain juice when seared.
And
> > they definitely do.
>
> Then no need to discuss it further. Particularly after reading the
> material below. I'll just post a note and you may do as you will.
>
> > I also know why the experiments done on TV and elsewhere will always
> > "prove" there is no difference between searing and not, even though
there is
> > a difference. And they can be duplicated to "prove" there is no
difference.
> > They are not unusual in that respect -which only demonstrates why
properly
> > done peer review is so important.
>
> String of non sequiturs. Peer review won't overturn the biology and
> physics of the process.
>
> > They fail to show the difference because they do not understand the
> > release and the transport mechanism of the fluid to the surface,
>
> They don't really need to understand *how* it works, only *if* it works.
> But your explanation is wrong.
>
> > or they
> > fail to recognize it and take advantage of it.
>
> There's really not much to recognize. The mechanisms are pretty clear.
>
> > (see below)
> >
> > "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>-- wrote:
> >>
> >>>Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the
esoteric
> >>>theory about supposedly how searing
> >>>1) doesn't make any difference
> >>>2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric reasons.
> >>
> >>Nothing esoteric about it. Simple biology and physics. *No cooking
> >>process* seals juices in meat.
> >
> >
> > 1) Which ones do not ?
> > Point of my comment here is that you do not have an all-inclusive
list to
> > make such a broad statement with any validity. What you know and what
you
> > have seen demonstrates to you that there is the lack of differnce, but
that
> > cannot be extended to the logic that one does not exist.
>
> Given the nature of protein and the effect that heat has on the ones in
> meat, it's a safe assertion that no cooking method seals in juices. Heat
> applied to protein always shrinks it. Whether wet or dry heat. Whether
> high or low heat. Whether oil, water or metal surface. Whether from
> above, beneath or all around. Whether at atmospheric pressure or under
> pressure in a closed vessel. No known method seals juices in meats as
> they cook. All methods cause proteins to shrink and all shrinkage
> releases water.
>
> > 2) Which mechanisms do seal juice in meat?
> > Point of my statement here is that since you do NOT have used the
ones
> > that do, that does not mean it does not exist, it only means you lack
> > knowledge of such mechanism. If you had one, then you would adopt the
new
> > conclusion and reject the old.
>
> It means that none exists. The nature of meat proteins is the determinant.

no, it only means you have not found one that exists.

>
> > I do believe there are several that do exactly the sealing in in
non-pan
> > conditions-e.g., that deep frying chicken in batter and under pressure
has
> > been shown to seal in water. And at least one that does it in a pan.
>
> Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Frying chicken in batter (a *very*
> permeable covering) loses water and that can be shown by weighing the
> chicken before battering, and again after cooking and removing batter.
> The chicken weighs less. Always. That's why frying chicken sizzles and
> sputters. It's water hitting hot oil. Always.
>
> You keep ignoring that sizzling as though it weren't happening. How to
> explain it if it isn't water being heated to steam and making noise in
> the process?
>
> > 3) "Physics" says that if the surface is made impervious to liquid,
liquid
> > does not pass. So how to make it impervious? Lock the surface fibers
> > closed.
>
> There is no such mechanism. Protein shrinks when cooked. It opens spaces
> between cells and protein strands.
>
> > How to lock fibers closed? By sufficient heat (physics heat, not
> > temperature "heat") delivered to the external cells to swell them,
rupture
> > them, and bind their proteins into a new oil-saturated matrix. This
> > rematrixing is not a foreign process at all.
>
> Protein absolutely *doesn't* swell when heated. It shrinks and
> surrenders its captive water. Oil-saturated matrix, indeed. Nice science
> fiction. It doesn't happen. And it assumes that every bit of the surface
> is cooked at exactly the same rate to exactly the same finish. Meat
> doesn't cook that way. It browns unevenly.

yours - not mine. thus another reason I can, and you never do, retain
liquid.

And how to include fats in
> this formula?
>

the transport for Q evenly to the surface, and the heat-changed fat that
helps create the seal.

> The water coming out of the meat is under pressure. Water is flashing
> over to steam while still inside the meat and forcing liquids out onto
> the cooking surface - it's sizzling. Water is leaving because protein is
> now heated enough to release it. The steam is venting out millions of
> cellular openings and pushing oil away.
>
> > (Note, however, that if I slow-sear, that is, sear with insufficient
heat
> > Q to not rupture, I only shrink the cells as their water is "weeped"
out. So
> > I must deliver sufficient Q heat to rupture rather than shrink, or I
have
> > left the gate open )
>
> There's no gate. The cells will shrink *no matter what* heat sufficient
> to cook you apply.
>
> > And oil impregnation of a matrix to prevent water passing thru the
matrix
> > is one of the most common forms of oil use. (called grease, a matrix of
> > fiber and "oil")
>
> Right. Except in a kitchen with food where no matrices are formed like
> the ones you're talking about. Oil impregnation is absolutely not going
> to happen when the oil is hot enough to cause water to flash over to
> steam. It pushes the oil out of the food. That's why properly fried food
> isn't oily. There is no matrix to impregnate. Grease doesn't need to
> include a fiber, it can be entirely chemical. But this is a red herring.
> The strands of denatured protein aren't available for the sort of
> combination you suggest.
>
> > 4) Next, meat does not have liquid sloshing around inside. It has it
> > trapped in cells, fact.
>
> And between cells.
>
> > It will remain in cells until some mechanism releases it, fact.
> > If it is not release it from the cells, it will not leave. Logic.
> > If I establish a non-linear temperature gradient such that the
interior
> > lacks the heat to release liquid from the cells during the time the
cells
> > are enclosed on an oil-impregnated matrix,
>
> There is no such matrix. And there is no such waterproofing going on.
> The steak sizzles the whole time it's cooking. It's the water leaving.
> This matrix is a nice theory, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. No
> one has seen such a matrix in rather concentrated study of these
processes.
>
> > AND the liquid will not have
> > time to reach (transport to) the exterior matix, I will have the juice
at
> > serving time.
>
> Nope. Temperature is the absolute determinant of whether the water
> leaves the cells. At 120°, the exodus begins - that's already warmer
> than rare. When it gets past 140°, or about medium, it's a stampede.
> That sizzling you hear when it's cooking is the water leaving. Since
> there is no impermeable matrix, the juices leave. To see if it's so, all
> that has to be done is to weigh it before and after cooking.
>
> > (For the lay reader, that means that you can heat it fast enough to
raise
> > the interior temp and if you take appropriate steps, you will not lose
water
> > because the liquid lacks the time from release from the cell to transit
out
> > of the more-impervious-by-searing meat.
>
> Your assertion that the route out is impervious to water leaving is
> simply incorrect. Meat will sizzle the entire time it's cooking. If the
> juices were sealed in, that would stop.
>
> > But if you cook it below some rate of heat transfer into the cells
> > holding moisture, the moisture will have more time to leave before the
> > process is done.
> > So then for some range of heat transfer, surface and internal,
searing
> > and non-searing will have no difference on liquid left, and all
experiments
> > done below that rate of transfer will show no difference in the methods)
>
> And what would that temperature be, according to this theory?
>
> > 5) The rate of the fluid passing thru the fibers depends on the
viscosity of
> > water, capillary action, gravity, and pressure. The "thinner" the water,
the
> > more rapid the transfer. (water at 55F is half as viscous as water at
45F.
> > HALF as "thick")
>
> <LOL> This is kitchen sink discourse. Throw everything in. Some is bound
> to stick. Lots of theoretical stuff, but there's a whole lot of
> empirical info available that throws it all out.
>
> > Destroy the capillary paths by establishing a non-capillary matrix on
the
> > surface, transfer by surface tension is reduced.
>
> It might be if this happened. It doesn't.
>
> > Lower the viscosity by having a cooler fluid barrier, the transfer
rate of
> > the thicker fluid drops.
>
> <LOL> Grasping at straws. Right. As though is the real world, the
> viscosity differences will have a material effect on cooking meats.
>
> > E.g., use a thick piece of meat and turn it over immediately before
the
> > liquid gathers on the interior of the matrix at the bottom, you will
have
> > the transfer time back thru the meat before it will reach the matrix on
the
> > other side and leave the meat. Keep ahead of the fluid flow by gravity,
and
> > the fluid stays in.
>
> Nope. You're assuming that it's passively leaking out when in fact it's
> being squeezed out. That's why when cooking a steak on a hot surface,
> drops of juices will appear on the top surface. As protein fibers
> contract and the meat shrinks, surrendered water will be purged out at
> all exposed muscle tissue surfaces.
>
> And this "cooking" technique seems to require X-Ray vision. But, alas,
> it doesn't work. Muscle tissue is like a stranded rope. As it's heated,
> the individual strands shrink releasing their water. The surface can't
> be sealed because it's not a solid surface like a piece of metal.
>
> > If the searing barrier does not exist, it will leave by capillary
action
> > in the fibers in the tissue and not pool so that "ahead of the flow"
effect
> > can be used.
> > I can "sear" meat and have it lose water, and I can "sear " meat and
have
> > it not lose water.
>
> Weigh it. Then report back.
>
> > That concept of one experimenter able to set up an experiment
germaine
> > to the issue after many other have failed is the core of experiments on
> > things not available -
> >
> > in other words, if you can't do it, and your experiments have not shown
it
> > can be done, the reverse is not proven - i.e., such experiments do not
prove
> > it can't be done.
>
> But when the physical properties of the materials guarantee that it's
> looking like just another kind of perpetual motion machine, it fails by
> definition.
>
> > And when you find another experiemnt that shows it, that only means
you
> > did not know well enough of the mechanism.
> > When you see an experiment by others that shows it happening, that
not
> > only means it can work, it means you will need to change your
conclusion.
>
> I'm still waiting for it to happen. After testing hundreds of pieces of
> meat over three decades of trying, using essentially every temperature
> variation and material, virtually every cut, scrutinizing all possible
> cooking techniques, I'm very comfortable with my point here. It's
> empirically derived in the face of lots of alternate theories.
>
> I've tried this sealing in business with roasts and steaks. Searing and
> not. Oil-cooking and dry roasting. No matter what technique I tried, it
> always weighed less after cooking than before. Period. And the loss was
> not linear. Steaks cooked "bleu" or to 115 center temp lost least.
> Typically around 3 or 4%%. Rare (125) lost about 6%. Medium (145) lost
> about 12% Well done (160-165) lost about 18%. Charred well (190) lost
> upwards of 25%. Whether pan-seared, charbroiled (heat from beneath),
> grilled (steel bars over open flames), broiled (heat from above),
> oven-finished, the percentages remained virtually constant.
>
> Roasting beef rounds showed the same sort of numbers. We finally roasted
> them all at low temp (205 convection) to 125 internal with no searing.
> Of all the single-temp or combination temps, or single technique or
> multiple technique approaches we tried, that arrangement yielded the
> greatest return. We routinely lost around 9% of initial, trimmed weight.
> All roasts were left to warm at room temp for 2 hours or more. Steaks
> were cooked from refrigerated temperatures.
>
> All cooked meats were left to rest, although for differing amounts of
> time. We found that if meats were cut immediately after being taken from
> the heat source, that juices gushed and we lost a significant percentage
> of the weight of the meat. But if we waited a short time, they didn't
> gush, but flowed gently and with less volume. That's been explained by
> suggesting either, that some reversal of protein denaturing is possible,
> and that it happens with the cooling that happens during the resting
> period. Or, that the juices are leeching to the surfaces that were
> heated sufficiently to evaporate their moisture and filling in hte
> vacated spaces. Of course, if steaks are left for too long, they lose
> juices just in the waiting - on the plate. That pretty much defines a
> surface that's distinctly permeable.
>
> It is absolutely in the best interests of restaurateurs for the steaks
> to be juicy. And it's been a serious area of professional study - and no
> one has been able to seal meat. Period. All these theories just collapse
> in the face of biology and physics and empirical results.
>
> >>>and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once again,
> >>>immediately after once again having proof of searing effects in my
pan -
> >>>
> >>>Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth consistently
fails
> >>>the engineering test here on the range.
> >>
> >>Read Harold McGee's book "On Food and Cooking: the Science and Lore of
> >>the Kitchen" for full, detailed science.
> >>
> > read it.
> > It has not undergone peer review,
>
> It has undergone the "review" of thousands and thousands of readers,
> many among them food scientists. The revised edition is 20 years after
> the first one and in that time, with the explanation that meats can't be
> sealed, no one has refuted it. No one has realistically challenged it.
> I'd suggest that 14 pages of fine print for the bibliography implies
> some serious scholarship, with about 40 references just for the meat
> chapter.
>
> > so while it is a point of view, and
> > much of it is appears valid and makes sense as the sun being the center
of
> > the universe and phlogiston made sense and subatomic particles beign the
> > smallest things made sense, it is hardly "full, detailed science"
>
> In the new edition, he expands his original discussion of what happens
> to meats in cooking. Complete with illustrations and good science to
> back it up. It's not a novel, it's a science text based on a huge
> bibliography and lots of direct experiments. The Smithsonian invited him
> to present material and he's been written about in their magazine. Not
> exactly lightweights.
>
> The other reality is that I trust McGee as a commentator and interpreter
> because in testing foods and processing for the past 30 years, there's
> little that I find to quibble about with his assertions that affect
> areas I've functioned in.
>
> > the information relayed below is excellent and valid in its application.
>
> Which information? Yours or mine?
>
> >
> >>The biology of protein explains what happens when meat is cooked. Your
> >>high heat denatured the surface protein more fully and caused it to more
> >>fully surrender captive water-based juices and rendered fats. The meats
> >>cooked at lower temperatures didn't have their proteins so fully cooked,
> >>so retained their juices more fully. Leakage of juices is an indication
> >>of degree of doneness, and that yours that leaked juice was more cooked
> >>than theirs that didn't.
> >>
> >>Frying in oil will cause the surface of the meat to rapidly rise above
> >>the boiling point of water so internal juices won't reach the pan;
> >>they'll be both cooked onto the surface of the meat and evaporated.
> >>
> >>The degree of doneness of the meat will be the determinant of juiciness.
> >>Your more cooked outside surrendered more juices to the pan and the
> >>surface of the meat in creating the Maillard effects of browning. If the
> >>meat sizzled while you were cooking it, it means that juices were being
> >>purged and cooked.
> >>
> >>The protein myosin begins contracting at about 120°F and squeezes water
> >>out. Up between 140°F and 150°F, the meat will release much more juice
> >>when the cellular collagen denatures, shrinks and exerts pressure on the
> >>fluid-filled cells inside them. At that point, meats will lose up to 1/6
> >>of their volume and begin to dry. This is approximately medium.
> >>
> >>The explanation and accompanying illustrations are more than I'm willing
> >>to type in here, but Dr. McGee devotes a good amount of space - several
> >>pages - to explain what happens to meat when it cooks.
> >>
> >>My experience in experimenting in all my restaurants with beef, pork,
> >>lamb, game (including lion, hippo, llama, gator, snake, bear, elk, boar,
> >>etc.), poultry (domestic and wild), and goat meats - is that he's right
> >>on the mark. Applies to roasts, steaks, braises, stews and any way to
> >>cook meats.
> >>
> >>Pastorio
> >>
> >>
> >>> One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and waiting
to
> >>>trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today, occurred on Tuesday
eve:
> >>>- I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot oil,
med
> >>>hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower the heat and do
4-5
> >>>min, and then cook it at the lower heat about 6 min a side back and
forth
> >>>until I think it is done.
> >>> Then, because it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but less
> >>>disturbing than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor
> >>>defrosting -especially frozen- with-bone chops).
> >>>
> >>>a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the cut
and
> >>>into the (up til then) residue free pan,
> >>>a1) leaving pan residue.
> >>>
> >>> The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid
cooks) do
> >>>not let out juice when cut.
> >>>b) My kid's meats (same stove, same pan, same lower temp, same amount
of
> >>>pink) do not drain when cut.
> >>>b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated drained juice
in
> >>>the pan deposited throughout the process.
> >>>
> >>>Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's are
the
> >>>same light pink but dry.
> >>>
> >>>Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.
> >>>
> >>>So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a valid
> >>>protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but rather available
> >>>juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but rather available juice.
> >>>
> >>>Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you all
for
> >>>the therapy....
> >>>
> >>>----------------
> >>>One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific understanding was in
his
> >>>phrase - "a million experiments can prove me right - but it only takes
one
> >>>to prove me wrong."
> >>>
> >>> It's all in the protocol, baby.
> >>>
> >>>FWIW.

-- wrote:

> I do respect your expertise and empirical observations and citations which
> you have laid out so well in your responses. And I fully understand why you
> believe what you believe about searing.
>
> However, your extension to theory sometimes juxtaposes elements, and your
> belief that an experiment proves a right is misplaced.

Yadda, yadda. Save the pontificating. Just present facts. I tested the
hypothesis that meat surfaces could be sealed. I found it to be
impossible with all known cooking technique.

> (The scientific search is for the replicable experiment that contradicts
> present theory, which then leads to scrutiny, real world experience, and
> further experiments which will contradict that new theory. From that
> discourse and experimentation come advancements in understanding.)

This is irrelevant to empirical results.

> You confuse proteins with cells. And you continually refer to protein .Give
> up the protein fixation from a book you read and instead focus on the fat -
> and the process becomes clear.

Lose the attitude. My scientific background is plenty good enough to run
this race. I'm not confusing anything here. The fat simply doesn't
behave the way you posit that it does. And it's protein fibers that are
the major players here. You keep trying to manufacture mechanisms that
don't happen in meat. Your suppositions are based on misinterpreting the
biochemical and physiological actions that happen in meat that's being
cooked. And a too-simple understanding of what happens when a
combination of proteins are subjected to heat.

> And no, unlike your chop, my chop does NOT sizzle the same thru the
> entire time of cooking. I have "fat sizzle" until I cut into it,

Fats don't sizzle by themselves. They heat, they smoke and they burn. At
no time in cooking fats do they make any noise unless there's water in
contact with them. Fats don't boil - there no such thing as a cauldron
of boiling oil, unless something else is in there. They don't make noise
at all by themselves.

> at which
> time I have "water sizzle" -thus the reason for my description as to pan
> residue. And apparently yours has the same sizzle throughout, meaning your
> process indeed fails to seal.

<LOL> Forgive me. Since fat doesn't sizzle without a water-based
diluent, this is exactly proving my point. Without water being purged,
there is no sizzle.

Sizzling can *only* come from water being rapidly boiled or flashing
over to steam. Nothing else makes noise in cooking a piece of meat. The
changing sound of the sizzle (and it's real) is because as the meat
crosses that 120° point, it slows its release of fluids until it hits
140° or so when it starts up again. There will be three "voices" as
French chefs say. It's a well-recognized phenomenon.

> And your reluctance to accept another method which on the surface appears
> to be the same is understandable
>
> (Note that in science, by definition the theory comes from the experiment
> applied to a hypothesis, not the other way around. Bad hypothesis and bad
> experiment gives bad theory. That is why lack of peer review is NOT a
> non-sequitor.
> Cooking theory, as it is in all other science, is derived from experiment,
> not experiment from theory. Equations come from experiment, not experiment
> from equations.
> Lay people tend to think that theory comes first and experiment
> proves -no, theory is the result of some experiment. Theory which can, and
> always may, be proven wrong by a better experiment.
> Thus your citing theory derived from the experiment that created the
> theory is never accepted - because it is a circular argument. )

Do save these lectures. I have a minor in bio sciences and write popular
science pieces.

> 1) As to protein:
> you state that protein will shrink and thus imply there is no possibility
> of the cell releasing water rapidly, even if I deliver heat (Q ) to the cell
> sufficiently rapidly to rupture the cell wall by boiling the fluid inside
> before it escapes.

Protein will denature - shrink, if you prefer - when heat hits it.
Period. In the process, it releases its captive water. Every time.
Always. Do take a look at how proteins are structured in meat. You'll
see that your understanding isn't correct. Muscle cells typically run
the full length of the muscle and can be longer than a foot. When its
cell integument is broken by heat, or less emphatically, chemical or
mechanical action, the cellular fluids leak out. Muscle fibers *are*
enormous cells. And they're comprised of many fibrils made of actin and
myosin. Lean meat is about 75% water, 20% protein and 3% fat. The
proteins are suspended in water, not the other way around.

Raw meat isn't juicy. When you bite a raw steak, there's no appreciable
leakage of juices. It's not until the cells get hot enough for the
proteins to denature that fluids appear in the meat.

> Hey, once that cell wall is ruptured, why do I care about protein? It
> isn't in the mechanism except as fiber for my oil "varnish".
>
> (Besides, in my organic chemistry books, protein is molecular chain, and
> does not "shrink". It breaks into amino acids or convolutes, but heat does
> not compress the space between the atoms of the protein molecules. only lack
> of heat shrinks a molecule. Check out molecular thermodynamics and electron
> levels as to why. )

Right. More theory about the whole world when we're talking about meat.
There's not just one kind of protein in meat. Check out a steak for the
real-world story.

Here are two paragraphs from "On Food and Cooking":

"Early juiciness: Fibers coagulate
One of the two major contracting filaments, the protein myosin, begins
to coagulate at about 120°F/50°C; this lends each cell some solidity and
the meat some firmness. As the myosin molecules bond to each other, they
squeeze out some of the water molecules that had separated them. This
water collects around the solidifying protein core, and is actively
squeezed out of the cell by its thin, elastic sheath of connective
tissue. In intact muscles, juices break through weak spots in the fiber
sheaths. In chops and steaks, which are thin slices of whole muscles, it
also escapes out the cut ends of the fibers. Meat served at this stage,
the equivalent of rare, is firm and juicy.

"Final juiciness: Collagen shrinks
As the meat's temperature rises to 140°F/60°C, more of the proteins
inside its cells coagulate and the cells become more segregated into a
solid core of coagulated protein and a surrounding tube of liquid; so
the meat gets progressively firmer and moister. Then between 140 and
150°F/60-65°C, the meat suddenly releases lots of juice, shrinks
noticeably and becomes chewier. These changes are caused by the
denaturing of collagen in the cells' connective-tissue sheaths, which
shrink and exert new pressure on the fluid filled cells inside them. The
fluid flows copiously, the piece of meat loses a sixth or more of its
volume, and its protein fibers becomes more densely packed and so harder
to cut through. Meat served in this temperature range, the equivalent of
medium-rare is changing from juicy to dry."
Harold McGee, "On Food and Cooking" pp150, 2004 edition.

> 2) And you miss the main matrix mechanism because you neglect the effects of
> fat at high temp.

Nope. No matrix mechanism because any meats raised to the temperatures
you're talking about in this experiment would be long since crisped and
inedible.

> Try this experiment to demonstrate - put a thin layer of fat in your hot
> pan and let it sit for five minutes - hot enough and long enough so that it
> oxidizes into a layer akin to varnish. Then try to get water under that
> changed-fat (like it in soapy boiling water).

Meaningless experiment. That pan would have to be very hot for that
polymerization to even begin to take place that quickly. What you're
talking about is the equivalent of seasoning a cast iron skillet. It
can't be done in 5 minutes. But, in any case, it's irrelevant. The
polymerization happens on that extremely hot surface. It doesn't happen
on the surface of meat or no one would want to eat it. Polymerized oils
taste very, very bad, indeed.

> Then do it at a lower temp and put it in soapy boiling water. Fat
> releases.
>
> This demonstrates the change in fat for this theory is not linear, and that
> fat will create a water-resistant seal if the temp and heat is high enough

Nope. It'll do that on a very hot pan. That pan has to be well over
350°F to have the plastic formation of that oil. Meat surfaces that hot
are past edibility. And since they have no heat sources of their own to
keep them hot enough long enough for the polymerization, it's a
meaningless point.

> Then if you want to do a proper experiment for protein - do it again in
> three parts - add protein (for home, like white fish) to the hot hot and
> less hot oil in both conditions, and now also include one fish piece cooked
> slowly - but this time remove the fish when you think it is done but not
> cooked to jerky- equal time for each in the pan, normalized.

Same amounts of time at extremely different temperatures? And you're
going to say that the one cooked at the highest temperature will be the
juiciest? Defining juicy - still retains much of its original moisture
now liberated from cellular bonds.

> Open the fish and confirm visually, and by measuring the fluid released
> onto the plate for each.

Easier to just weigh. More accurate, too.

> Do it 33 times for a proper statistical experiment, or use the one
> experiment as anecdotal.

Don't need to do any experiments, and certainly not the ones above. Any
trained restaurant cook can tell you what the results will be. They've
been done and redone and reredone for millennia.

I once got into a discussion with a guy who insisted that we could build
a "space elevator" by taking a long loop of rope of some kind and
putting the far end up at low earth orbit. His idea was that we could
just tie stuff to the rope and pull it up. Nice idea. We don't have
materials that could do that - no rope, no cable, no exotic metals, no
sci-fi fibers, nothing - and we don't have materials in the foreseeable
future than could. He kept trying to stick variables and theoretical
conditions in, but when all was said and done, it's still impossible
with current materials.

This discussion is like that. As long as we deal with real meat and not
organic chemistry books, it's not possible to seal the surface of meats
because of their inherent structure. That's all. No matrices. No grease.
No thermal gradients. No temperature.

You're confusing cuisine with cautery.

Pastorio



>
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>-- wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I know exactly why, scientifically, my meats retain juice when seared. And
>>>they definitely do.
>>
>>Then no need to discuss it further. Particularly after reading the
>>material below. I'll just post a note and you may do as you will.
>>
>>
>>> I also know why the experiments done on TV and elsewhere will always
>>>"prove" there is no difference between searing and not, even though there is
>>>a difference. And they can be duplicated to "prove" there is no difference.
>>>They are not unusual in that respect -which only demonstrates why properly
>>>done peer review is so important.
>>
>>String of non sequiturs. Peer review won't overturn the biology and
>>physics of the process.
>>
>>
>>> They fail to show the difference because they do not understand the
>>>release and the transport mechanism of the fluid to the surface,
>>
>>They don't really need to understand *how* it works, only *if* it works.
>>But your explanation is wrong.
>>
>> > or they
>>>fail to recognize it and take advantage of it.
>>
>>There's really not much to recognize. The mechanisms are pretty clear.
>>
>>
>>>(see below)
>>>
>>>"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>-- wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the esoteric
>>>>>theory about supposedly how searing
>>>>>1) doesn't make any difference
>>>>>2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric reasons.
>>>>
>>>>Nothing esoteric about it. Simple biology and physics. *No cooking
>>>>process* seals juices in meat.
>>>
>>>
>>>1) Which ones do not ?
>>> Point of my comment here is that you do not have an all-inclusive list to
>>>make such a broad statement with any validity. What you know and what you
>>>have seen demonstrates to you that there is the lack of differnce, but that
>>>cannot be extended to the logic that one does not exist.
>>
>>Given the nature of protein and the effect that heat has on the ones in
>>meat, it's a safe assertion that no cooking method seals in juices. Heat
>>applied to protein always shrinks it. Whether wet or dry heat. Whether
>>high or low heat. Whether oil, water or metal surface. Whether from
>>above, beneath or all around. Whether at atmospheric pressure or under
>>pressure in a closed vessel. No known method seals juices in meats as
>>they cook. All methods cause proteins to shrink and all shrinkage
>>releases water.
>>
>>
>>>2) Which mechanisms do seal juice in meat?
>>> Point of my statement here is that since you do NOT have used the ones
>>>that do, that does not mean it does not exist, it only means you lack
>>>knowledge of such mechanism. If you had one, then you would adopt the new
>>>conclusion and reject the old.
>>
>>It means that none exists. The nature of meat proteins is the determinant.
>
>
> no, it only means you have not found one that exists.
>
>
>>> I do believe there are several that do exactly the sealing in in non-pan
>>>conditions-e.g., that deep frying chicken in batter and under pressure has
>>>been shown to seal in water. And at least one that does it in a pan.
>>
>>Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Frying chicken in batter (a *very*
>>permeable covering) loses water and that can be shown by weighing the
>>chicken before battering, and again after cooking and removing batter.
>>The chicken weighs less. Always. That's why frying chicken sizzles and
>>sputters. It's water hitting hot oil. Always.
>>
>>You keep ignoring that sizzling as though it weren't happening. How to
>>explain it if it isn't water being heated to steam and making noise in
>>the process?
>>
>>
>>> 3) "Physics" says that if the surface is made impervious to liquid, liquid
>>>does not pass. So how to make it impervious? Lock the surface fibers
>>>closed.
>>
>>There is no such mechanism. Protein shrinks when cooked. It opens spaces
>>between cells and protein strands.
>>
>>
>>> How to lock fibers closed? By sufficient heat (physics heat, not
>>>temperature "heat") delivered to the external cells to swell them, rupture
>>>them, and bind their proteins into a new oil-saturated matrix. This
>>>rematrixing is not a foreign process at all.
>>
>>Protein absolutely *doesn't* swell when heated. It shrinks and
>>surrenders its captive water. Oil-saturated matrix, indeed. Nice science
>>fiction. It doesn't happen. And it assumes that every bit of the surface
>>is cooked at exactly the same rate to exactly the same finish. Meat
>>doesn't cook that way. It browns unevenly.
>
>
> yours - not mine. thus another reason I can, and you never do, retain
> liquid.
>
> And how to include fats in this formula?
>>
>
>
> the transport for Q evenly to the surface, and the heat-changed fat that
> helps create the seal.
>
>
>>The water coming out of the meat is under pressure. Water is flashing
>>over to steam while still inside the meat and forcing liquids out onto
>>the cooking surface - it's sizzling. Water is leaving because protein is
>>now heated enough to release it. The steam is venting out millions of
>>cellular openings and pushing oil away.
>>
>>
>>> (Note, however, that if I slow-sear, that is, sear with insufficient heat
>>>Q to not rupture, I only shrink the cells as their water is "weeped" out. So
>>>I must deliver sufficient Q heat to rupture rather than shrink, or I have
>>>left the gate open )
>>
>>There's no gate. The cells will shrink *no matter what* heat sufficient
>>to cook you apply.
>>
>>
>>> And oil impregnation of a matrix to prevent water passing thru the matrix
>>>is one of the most common forms of oil use. (called grease, a matrix of
>>>fiber and "oil")
>>
>>Right. Except in a kitchen with food where no matrices are formed like
>>the ones you're talking about. Oil impregnation is absolutely not going
>>to happen when the oil is hot enough to cause water to flash over to
>>steam. It pushes the oil out of the food. That's why properly fried food
>>isn't oily. There is no matrix to impregnate. Grease doesn't need to
>>include a fiber, it can be entirely chemical. But this is a red herring.
>>The strands of denatured protein aren't available for the sort of
>>combination you suggest.
>>
>>
>>> 4) Next, meat does not have liquid sloshing around inside. It has it
>>>trapped in cells, fact.
>>
>>And between cells.
>>
>>> It will remain in cells until some mechanism releases it, fact.
>>> If it is not release it from the cells, it will not leave. Logic.
>>> If I establish a non-linear temperature gradient such that the interior
>>>lacks the heat to release liquid from the cells during the time the cells
>>>are enclosed on an oil-impregnated matrix,
>>
>>There is no such matrix. And there is no such waterproofing going on.
>>The steak sizzles the whole time it's cooking. It's the water leaving.
>>This matrix is a nice theory, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. No
>>one has seen such a matrix in rather concentrated study of these processes.
>
>> > AND the liquid will not have
>>>time to reach (transport to) the exterior matix, I will have the juice at
>>>serving time.
>>
>>Nope. Temperature is the absolute determinant of whether the water
>>leaves the cells. At 120°, the exodus begins - that's already warmer
>>than rare. When it gets past 140°, or about medium, it's a stampede.
>>That sizzling you hear when it's cooking is the water leaving. Since
>>there is no impermeable matrix, the juices leave. To see if it's so, all
>>that has to be done is to weigh it before and after cooking.
>>
>>
>>> (For the lay reader, that means that you can heat it fast enough to raise
>>>the interior temp and if you take appropriate steps, you will not lose water
>>>because the liquid lacks the time from release from the cell to transit out
>>>of the more-impervious-by-searing meat.
>>
>>Your assertion that the route out is impervious to water leaving is
>>simply incorrect. Meat will sizzle the entire time it's cooking. If the
>>juices were sealed in, that would stop.
>>
>>
>>> But if you cook it below some rate of heat transfer into the cells
>>>holding moisture, the moisture will have more time to leave before the
>>>process is done.
>>> So then for some range of heat transfer, surface and internal,searing
>>>and non-searing will have no difference on liquid left, and all experiments
>>>done below that rate of transfer will show no difference in the methods)
>>
>>And what would that temperature be, according to this theory?
>>
>>
>>>5) The rate of the fluid passing thru the fibers depends on the viscosity of
>>>water, capillary action, gravity, and pressure. The "thinner" the water, the
>>>more rapid the transfer. (water at 55F is half as viscous as water at 45F.
>>>HALF as "thick")
>>
>><LOL> This is kitchen sink discourse. Throw everything in. Some is bound
>>to stick. Lots of theoretical stuff, but there's a whole lot of
>>empirical info available that throws it all out.
>>
>>
>>> Destroy the capillary paths by establishing a non-capillary matrix on the
>>>surface, transfer by surface tension is reduced.
>>
>>It might be if this happened. It doesn't.
>>
>>
>>> Lower the viscosity by having a cooler fluid barrier, the transfer rate of
>>>the thicker fluid drops.
>>
>><LOL> Grasping at straws. Right. As though is the real world, the
>>viscosity differences will have a material effect on cooking meats.
>>
>>
>>> E.g., use a thick piece of meat and turn it over immediately before the
>>>liquid gathers on the interior of the matrix at the bottom, you will have
>>>the transfer time back thru the meat before it will reach the matrix on the
>>>other side and leave the meat. Keep ahead of the fluid flow by gravity, and
>>>the fluid stays in.
>>
>>Nope. You're assuming that it's passively leaking out when in fact it's
>>being squeezed out. That's why when cooking a steak on a hot surface,
>>drops of juices will appear on the top surface. As protein fibers
>>contract and the meat shrinks, surrendered water will be purged out at
>>all exposed muscle tissue surfaces.
>>
>>And this "cooking" technique seems to require X-Ray vision. But, alas,
>>it doesn't work. Muscle tissue is like a stranded rope. As it's heated,
>>the individual strands shrink releasing their water. The surface can't
>>be sealed because it's not a solid surface like a piece of metal.
>>
>>
>>> If the searing barrier does not exist, it will leave by capillary action
>>>in the fibers in the tissue and not pool so that "ahead of the flow" effect
>>>can be used.
>>> I can "sear" meat and have it lose water, and I can "sear " meat and have
>>>it not lose water.
>>
>>Weigh it. Then report back.
>>
>>
>>> That concept of one experimenter able to set up an experiment germaine
>>>to the issue after many other have failed is the core of experiments on
>>>things not available -
>>>
>>>in other words, if you can't do it, and your experiments have not shown it
>>>can be done, the reverse is not proven - i.e., such experiments do not prove
>>>it can't be done.
>>
>>But when the physical properties of the materials guarantee that it's
>>looking like just another kind of perpetual motion machine, it fails by
>>definition.
>>
>>
>>> And when you find another experiemnt that shows it, that only means you
>>>did not know well enough of the mechanism.
>>> When you see an experiment by others that shows it happening, that not
>>>only means it can work, it means you will need to change your conclusion.



>>I'm still waiting for it to happen. After testing hundreds of pieces of
>>meat over three decades of trying, using essentially every temperature
>>variation and material, virtually every cut, scrutinizing all possible
>>cooking techniques, I'm very comfortable with my point here. It's
>>empirically derived in the face of lots of alternate theories.
>>
>>I've tried this sealing in business with roasts and steaks. Searing and
>>not. Oil-cooking and dry roasting. No matter what technique I tried, it
>>always weighed less after cooking than before. Period. And the loss was
>>not linear. Steaks cooked "bleu" or to 115 center temp lost least.
>>Typically around 3 or 4%%. Rare (125) lost about 6%. Medium (145) lost
>>about 12% Well done (160-165) lost about 18%. Charred well (190) lost
>>upwards of 25%. Whether pan-seared, charbroiled (heat from beneath),
>>grilled (steel bars over open flames), broiled (heat from above),
>>oven-finished, the percentages remained virtually constant.
>>
>>Roasting beef rounds showed the same sort of numbers. We finally roasted
>>them all at low temp (205 convection) to 125 internal with no searing.
>>Of all the single-temp or combination temps, or single technique or
>>multiple technique approaches we tried, that arrangement yielded the
>>greatest return. We routinely lost around 9% of initial, trimmed weight.
>>All roasts were left to warm at room temp for 2 hours or more. Steaks
>>were cooked from refrigerated temperatures.
>>
>>All cooked meats were left to rest, although for differing amounts of
>>time. We found that if meats were cut immediately after being taken from
>>the heat source, that juices gushed and we lost a significant percentage
>>of the weight of the meat. But if we waited a short time, they didn't
>>gush, but flowed gently and with less volume. That's been explained by
>>suggesting either, that some reversal of protein denaturing is possible,
>>and that it happens with the cooling that happens during the resting
>>period. Or, that the juices are leeching to the surfaces that were
>>heated sufficiently to evaporate their moisture and filling in hte
>>vacated spaces. Of course, if steaks are left for too long, they lose
>>juices just in the waiting - on the plate. That pretty much defines a
>>surface that's distinctly permeable.
>>
>>It is absolutely in the best interests of restaurateurs for the steaks
>>to be juicy. And it's been a serious area of professional study - and no
>>one has been able to seal meat. Period. All these theories just collapse
>>in the face of biology and physics and empirical results.
>>
>>
>>>>>and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once again,
>>>>>immediately after once again having proof of searing effects in my pan -
>>>>>Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth consistently fails
>>>>>the engineering test here on the range.
>>>>
>>>>Read Harold McGee's book "On Food and Cooking: the Science and Lore of
>>>>the Kitchen" for full, detailed science.
>>>>
>>>
>>>read it.
>>> It has not undergone peer review,
>>
>>It has undergone the "review" of thousands and thousands of readers,
>>many among them food scientists. The revised edition is 20 years after
>>the first one and in that time, with the explanation that meats can't be
>>sealed, no one has refuted it. No one has realistically challenged it.
>>I'd suggest that 14 pages of fine print for the bibliography implies
>>some serious scholarship, with about 40 references just for the meat
>>chapter.
>>
>> > so while it is a point of view, and much of it is appears valid and makes sense as the sun being the center of
>>>the universe and phlogiston made sense and subatomic particles beign the
>>>smallest things made sense, it is hardly "full, detailed science"
>>
>>In the new edition, he expands his original discussion of what happens
>>to meats in cooking. Complete with illustrations and good science to
>>back it up. It's not a novel, it's a science text based on a huge
>>bibliography and lots of direct experiments. The Smithsonian invited him
>>to present material and he's been written about in their magazine. Not
>>exactly lightweights.
>>
>>The other reality is that I trust McGee as a commentator and interpreter
>>because in testing foods and processing for the past 30 years, there's
>>little that I find to quibble about with his assertions that affect
>>areas I've functioned in.
>>
>>
>>>the information relayed below is excellent and valid in its application.
>>
>>Which information? Yours or mine?
>>
>>
>>>>The biology of protein explains what happens when meat is cooked. Your
>>>>high heat denatured the surface protein more fully and caused it to more
>>>>fully surrender captive water-based juices and rendered fats. The meats
>>>>cooked at lower temperatures didn't have their proteins so fully cooked,
>>>>so retained their juices more fully. Leakage of juices is an indication
>>>>of degree of doneness, and that yours that leaked juice was more cooked
>>>>than theirs that didn't.
>>>>
>>>>Frying in oil will cause the surface of the meat to rapidly rise above
>>>>the boiling point of water so internal juices won't reach the pan;
>>>>they'll be both cooked onto the surface of the meat and evaporated.
>>>>
>>>>The degree of doneness of the meat will be the determinant of juiciness.
>>>>Your more cooked outside surrendered more juices to the pan and the
>>>>surface of the meat in creating the Maillard effects of browning. If the
>>>>meat sizzled while you were cooking it, it means that juices were being
>>>>purged and cooked.
>>>>
>>>>The protein myosin begins contracting at about 120°F and squeezes water
>>>>out. Up between 140°F and 150°F, the meat will release much more juice
>>>>when the cellular collagen denatures, shrinks and exerts pressure on the
>>>>fluid-filled cells inside them. At that point, meats will lose up to 1/6
>>>>of their volume and begin to dry. This is approximately medium.
>>>>
>>>>The explanation and accompanying illustrations are more than I'm willing
>>>>to type in here, but Dr. McGee devotes a good amount of space - several
>>>>pages - to explain what happens to meat when it cooks.
>>>>
>>>>My experience in experimenting in all my restaurants with beef, pork,
>>>>lamb, game (including lion, hippo, llama, gator, snake, bear, elk, boar,
>>>>etc.), poultry (domestic and wild), and goat meats - is that he's right
>>>>on the mark. Applies to roasts, steaks, braises, stews and any way to
>>>>cook meats.
>>>>
>>>>Pastorio
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and waiting to
>>>>>trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today, occurred on Tuesday eve:
>>>>>- I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot oil, med
>>>>>hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower the heat and do 4-5
>>>>>min, and then cook it at the lower heat about 6 min a side back and forth
>>>>>until I think it is done.
>>>>> Then, because it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but less
>>>>>disturbing than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor
>>>>>defrosting -especially frozen- with-bone chops).
>>>>>
>>>>>a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the cut and
>>>>>into the (up til then) residue free pan,
>>>>>a1) leaving pan residue.
>>>>>
>>>>> The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid cooks) do
>>>>>not let out juice when cut.
>>>>>b) My kid's meats (same stove, same pan, same lower temp, same amount of
>>>>>pink) do not drain when cut.
>>>>>b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated drained juice in
>>>>>the pan deposited throughout the process.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's are the
>>>>>same light pink but dry.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.
>>>>>
>>>>>So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a valid
>>>>>protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but rather available
>>>>>juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but rather available juice.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you all for
>>>>>the therapy....
>>>>>
>>>>>----------------
>>>>>One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific understanding was in his
>>>>>phrase - "a million experiments can prove me right - but it only takes one
>>>>>to prove me wrong."
>>>>>
>>>>>It's all in the protocol, baby.
>>>>>
>>>>>FWIW.

"--" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "--" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >Thanks for playing. If there is no weight difference there is no
>> > difference
>> >>in juice lost. Even Alton Brown did a show on it.
>> >
>> > The criterion has not been if weight is lost, it is whether the meat is
>> > jucier.
>> >
>> > It is a fallacy to assume loss of fluid = lack of "juiciness"
>> >
>> > E,g., leaving the milk on my cereal for twenty minutes makes the cereal
>> > less
>> > juicy, but yet no weight is lost.
>>
>> As the cereal sits in the milk it becomes more juicy. think about it..
>
> actually, my cereal does not become more juicy
> - the milk becomes less dominant as a free component, the cereal becomes
> a
> soggy mass as the water combines with the flour, and the free liquid is
> gone.
>
> My example and your response goes to the heart of the question about a
> test
> for juiciness -
> is it about water staying in the fiber,
> is it about water sitting between fibers and running out when chewed,
> and thus is it really about losing water from the piece of meat or is it
> where the juice resides when it remains in the meat?
>
> I hold that juiciness is a measure of the free liquid remaining in the
> meat, not the measure of liquid remaining in the meat.
>
>
Free liquid? Then the raw meat is not juicy. There is no "free liquid" in
raw meat. If you cut it no liquid runs out.

But I guess if you want to define the words to mean what you want them to
mean, then you are correct.

del
>
>>
>>
>
>

"--" > wrote in message
...
> 5) The rate of the fluid passing thru the fibers depends on the viscosity
> of
> water, capillary action, gravity, and pressure. The "thinner" the water,
> the
> more rapid the transfer. (water at 55F is half as viscous as water at
> 45F.
> HALF as "thick")
This seemed totally preposterous to me, since it would be noticable in water
from the tap. So I looked it up

According to the table at
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cch...23/liquid.html

it is 1.002 cP at 20C and .653 at 40C. Your 10 degrees F is about 5C, so
you would get a change of about 0.1 cP, not a factor of 2.

Clearly you are not worth arguing with.

-- wrote:

>Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the esoteric
>theory about supposedly how searing
>1) doesn't make any difference
>2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric reasons.
>
>and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once again,
>immediately after once again having proof of searing effects in my pan -
>
>Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth consistently fails
>the engineering test here on the range.
>
> One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and waiting to
>trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today, occurred on Tuesday eve:
>
>- I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot oil, med
>hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower the heat and do 4-5
>min, and then cook it at the lower heat about 6 min a side back and forth
>until I think it is done.
> Then, because it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but less
>disturbing than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor
>defrosting -especially frozen- with-bone chops).
>
>a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the cut and
>into the (up til then) residue free pan,
>a1) leaving pan residue.
>
> The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid cooks) do
>not let out juice when cut.
>b) My kid's meats (same stove, same pan, same lower temp, same amount of
>pink) do not drain when cut.
>b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated drained juice in
>the pan deposited throughout the process.
>
>Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's are the
>same light pink but dry.
>
>Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.
>
>So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a valid
>protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but rather available
>juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but rather available juice.
>
>Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you all for
>the therapy....
>
>----------------
>One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific understanding was in his
>phrase - "a million experiments can prove me right - but it only takes one
>to prove me wrong."
>
> It's all in the protocol, baby.
>
>FWIW.
>
>
>
>
I am reminded of the scientist that teaches a frog to jump on command.
He then amputates all four of the frog's legs and tells him to jump.
The frog, of course, does not. The conclusion? Cutting off a frog's
legs renders them deaf!

Bubba





--
You wanna measure, or you wanna cook?

Bubba wrote:
> -- wrote:
>
>> Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the
>> esoteric
>> theory about supposedly how searing
>> 1) doesn't make any difference
>> 2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric reasons.
>>
>> and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once again,
>> immediately after once again having proof of searing effects in my pan -
>>
>> Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth consistently
>> fails
>> the engineering test here on the range.

[...]

>> FWIW.
>>
> I am reminded of the scientist that teaches a frog to jump on command.
> He then amputates all four of the frog's legs and tells him to jump.
> The frog, of course, does not. The conclusion? Cutting off a frog's
> legs renders them deaf!
>
> Bubba

<LOL> Nailed.

Pastorio

Note: your table link does not have the viscosity of water at or near either
temperature I cited. It does, however, illustrate the validity of the times
two statement for water viscosity at surface vs internal cooking temps.

(My illustration as to viscosity range was only to the variation in the
viscosity and thus to the effects on intercellular transport, etc., not a
source document for a research paper. The "times 2", as I remember it, is
from an engineering rule of thumb for resistance to flow in branch potable
water pipes, to account for the difference in resistance and drop seen
between summer ground temperature and winter ground temperatures.)

For the actual lab values, see below -


The chemistry value of the viscosity of water measured in a Saybolt-type
device which removes capillary and wall effects, from P 6-10 of the
Chemistry Handbook

at 45 F = 1550 uPas
at 55 F = 1150 uPas

which is not double, but only a 35% change.

Still significant when the viscosity of the surface liquid is 280 and the
interior viscosity is above 600.

"Del Cecchi" > wrote in message
...
>
> "--" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 5) The rate of the fluid passing thru the fibers depends on the
viscosity
> > of
> > water, capillary action, gravity, and pressure. The "thinner" the water,
> > the
m> > more rapid the transfer. (water at 55F is half as viscous as water at
> > 45F.
> > HALF as "thick")
> This seemed totally preposterous to me, since it would be noticable in
water
> from the tap. So I looked it up
>
> According to the table at
> http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cch...23/liquid.html
>
> it is 1.002 cP at 20C and .653 at 40C. Your 10 degrees F is about 5C, so
> you would get a change of about 0.1 cP, not a factor of 2.
>
> Clearly you are not worth arguing with.
>
>

"Bubba" > wrote in message
. ..
> -- wrote:
>
> >Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the
esoteric
> >theory about supposedly how searing
> >1) doesn't make any difference
> >2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric reasons.
> >
> >and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once again,
> >immediately after once again having proof of searing effects in my pan -
> >
> >Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth consistently
fails
> >the engineering test here on the range.
> >
> > One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and waiting
to
> >trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today, occurred on Tuesday
eve:
> >
> >- I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot oil,
med
> >hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower the heat and do
4-5
> >min, and then cook it at the lower heat about 6 min a side back and forth
> >until I think it is done.
> > Then, because it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but less
> >disturbing than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor
> >defrosting -especially frozen- with-bone chops).
> >
> >a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the cut
and
> >into the (up til then) residue free pan,
> >a1) leaving pan residue.
> >
> > The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid cooks)
do
> >not let out juice when cut.
> >b) My kid's meats (same stove, same pan, same lower temp, same amount of
> >pink) do not drain when cut.
> >b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated drained juice
in
> >the pan deposited throughout the process.
> >
> >Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's are the
> >same light pink but dry.
> >
> >Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.
> >
> >So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a valid
> >protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but rather available
> >juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but rather available juice.
> >
> >Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you all
for
> >the therapy....
> >
> >----------------
> >One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific understanding was in
his
> >phrase - "a million experiments can prove me right - but it only takes
one
> >to prove me wrong."
> >
> > It's all in the protocol, baby.
> >
> >FWIW.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I am reminded of the scientist that teaches a frog to jump on command.
> He then amputates all four of the frog's legs and tells him to jump.
> The frog, of course, does not. The conclusion? Cutting off a frog's
> legs renders them deaf!
>
> Bubba
>

Absolutely on the mark -- I love this story.




>
>
>
>
> --
> You wanna measure, or you wanna cook?
>

It seems pretty obvious that you have your version of phlogiston firmly
fixed, that you will never accept any experiments to the contrary of your
personal view, and that you have never published or done any experiments
validated by others.

Your results and your conclusions are as valid as your method and your
open-mindedness from the yadd yadda Pastore BS-machine.

FI - I did the experiment once again yesterday: oil, no oil; various temps;
examined the surface under magnification; measured water passing thru
surfaces. The surface was sealed under my conditions.
The results stand, and apparently are in conflict with your theory.

So I guess you will eat your dry meat while I eat juicy meat, and you can
regale yourself in the blissful ignorance of your dry-chew smothered in
ketchup that there is no better way possible, knowing you were "right" as
you masticate ad infinitum -- or you can amend your theory to eat meat that
is actually juicy.

I will ignore your inane comment about how this is technical followed by
your comment about what I said applied to protein in general and thus my
comment was too technical.
--------------

from your cite of the hole-ridden theorist -
> "Early juiciness: Fibers coagulate
> One of the two major contracting filaments, the protein myosin, begins
> to coagulate at about 120°F/50°C; this lends each cell some solidity and
> the meat some firmness. As the myosin molecules bond to each other, they
> squeeze out some of the water molecules that had separated them.

Think about this chicken or egg circular theory -

1) the proteins bond, squeezing water -

2) the proteins are separated, bonding across the water of separation, and
by implication (since this water is lost and found several times) not using
the water in the bonding?

which is it?

Oh, I see - they somehow touch a little -not too much, or it won't work, or
too little or it won't work it's jusst right. Just enough to make this
theory work - ok, but then

This
> water collects around the solidifying protein core,

3) solidifying protein core, as in solid wall, as in matrix ? Should I have
said a "solid protein core" that holds oil earlier instead of matrix? Would
you have gotten that?

So he says the water squeezes out and collects around the matrix

4) >and is actively squeezed out of the cell

this water was the one before the protein bonded, then where it wasn't
because of the "protein core", then where it is now back again to squeeze
the cell which wasn't there before. Ok.

>by its thin, elastic sheath of connective
> tissue.

And what was this tissue doing during the water-in-water-out-water-in thing?
Now we have connective tissue squeezing. Ok. Whatever it takes to get the
water squeezed out, since we already used it/lost it/blocked in the matrix.

In intact muscles, juices break through weak spots in the fiber
> sheaths.

"Weak spots"? Can't you find a better cite than this?

So per his theory, if I have free range longhorn beef, with strong muscles
from running all day, it is a lot juicier than the old weak angus with weak
leaky fibers, the prime one that sat around the feedlot and went soft.

Hooyah! Your theory answer to juicy meat is run the cattle a lot!

>In chops and steaks, which are thin slices of whole muscles, it
> also escapes out the cut ends of the fibers. Meat served at this stage,
> the equivalent of rare, is firm and juicy.
>

Firm? Has this guy ever cooked (sorry, fried) anything?
Ok, Fred, the way you tell if meat is rare, is that it is firm. The
myosin will bind into a matrix, so touch it with a fork - rare is firm.

> "Final juiciness: Collagen shrinks
> As the meat's temperature rises to 140°F/60°C, more of the proteins
> inside its cells coagulate and the cells become more segregated into a
> solid core of coagulated protein and a surrounding tube of liquid; so
> the meat gets progressively firmer and moister. Then between 140 and
> 150°F/60-65°C, the meat suddenly releases lots of juice, shrinks
> noticeably and becomes chewier.

Suddenly? Would that be scientifically "SUDDenly ! or Suddenly. Or
suddenly....
Not up on that scientific term "suddenly". Maybe he didn't have a time (or
it seems a mechanism) to get from A to B.

And all done by the unexplained method of magic release, apparently.

Ok, so water release makes it chewier? No, that's not consistent with his
earlier comments.
OK, Water loss, perhaps? Does water make things tender?

Eureka ! He's done it again ! We feed the longhorns water before
slaughter (we'll have to work around the studies that show this doesn't
work, but it's a minor detail for the scientists who accept it), then water
plus strong muscle fiber makes for juicy meat !
(So why do people waste their money on prime marbled meat if it's the
proteins and water and no weak spots that is the secret - fools parted with
their money, apparently)

Say - if I can divide this scientific "suddenly" into the three sequential
parts (he did not say simultaneous) , I can get juice before the meat
shrinks - and etc.
Unfortunately, this mechanism which chefs so ardently seek is not
addressed -no word, no hint - just a jump by the author to the magic big
three - it is that magic which the author has yet to find, and sort of
missed - this 160F "magic" of his.

Even if the inconsistencies could be resolved, simple frying vs cooking
would seem to doom your cite to the trash. Wet pot roast....

These changes are caused by the
> denaturing

unfolding the protein to render it biologically inactive? ALL THE PROTEINS?
No wonder he has tough meat. He has all his proteins unfolded.

of collagen in the cells' connective-tissue sheaths, which
> shrink and exert new pressure on the fluid filled cells inside them.

Unfolding the proteins causes them to shrink..... hmmm. odd. Unfold and
squeeze. At the same time. Trick.

The
> fluid flows copiously, the piece of meat loses a sixth or more of its
> volume, and its protein fibers becomes more densely packed and so harder
> to cut through.

"It's protein fibers becomes more densely packed " like in a matrix on the
surface of the meat, IF YOU DID THIS IN THE FIRST THREE MINUTES
OF COOKING? Like when SEARING ?! And fill it with oil, oil that does not let
water pass? At least in this dimension, water and oil are immiscible.

Meat served in this temperature range, the equivalent of
> medium-rare is changing from juicy to dry."
> Harold McGee, "On Food and Cooking" pp150, 2004 edition.

enough - the book was weak before, its weak still.


"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> -- wrote:
>
> > I do respect your expertise and empirical observations and citations
which
> > you have laid out so well in your responses. And I fully understand why
you
> > believe what you believe about searing.
> >
> > However, your extension to theory sometimes juxtaposes elements, and
your
> > belief that an experiment proves a right is misplaced.
>
> Yadda, yadda. Save the pontificating. Just present facts. I tested the
> hypothesis that meat surfaces could be sealed. I found it to be
> impossible with all known cooking technique.
>
> > (The scientific search is for the replicable experiment that
contradicts
> > present theory, which then leads to scrutiny, real world experience,
and
> > further experiments which will contradict that new theory. From that
> > discourse and experimentation come advancements in understanding.)
>
> This is irrelevant to empirical results.
>
> > You confuse proteins with cells. And you continually refer to protein
..Give
> > up the protein fixation from a book you read and instead focus on the
fat -
> > and the process becomes clear.
>
> Lose the attitude. My scientific background is plenty good enough to run
> this race. I'm not confusing anything here. The fat simply doesn't
> behave the way you posit that it does. And it's protein fibers that are
> the major players here. You keep trying to manufacture mechanisms that
> don't happen in meat. Your suppositions are based on misinterpreting the
> biochemical and physiological actions that happen in meat that's being
> cooked. And a too-simple understanding of what happens when a
> combination of proteins are subjected to heat.
>
> > And no, unlike your chop, my chop does NOT sizzle the same thru the
> > entire time of cooking. I have "fat sizzle" until I cut into it,
>
> Fats don't sizzle by themselves. They heat, they smoke and they burn. At
> no time in cooking fats do they make any noise unless there's water in
> contact with them. Fats don't boil - there no such thing as a cauldron
> of boiling oil, unless something else is in there. They don't make noise
> at all by themselves.
>
> > at which
> > time I have "water sizzle" -thus the reason for my description as to pan
> > residue. And apparently yours has the same sizzle throughout, meaning
your
> > process indeed fails to seal.
>
> <LOL> Forgive me. Since fat doesn't sizzle without a water-based
> diluent, this is exactly proving my point. Without water being purged,
> there is no sizzle.
>
> Sizzling can *only* come from water being rapidly boiled or flashing
> over to steam. Nothing else makes noise in cooking a piece of meat. The
> changing sound of the sizzle (and it's real) is because as the meat
> crosses that 120° point, it slows its release of fluids until it hits
> 140° or so when it starts up again. There will be three "voices" as
> French chefs say. It's a well-recognized phenomenon.
>
> > And your reluctance to accept another method which on the surface
appears
> > to be the same is understandable
> >
> > (Note that in science, by definition the theory comes from the
experiment
> > applied to a hypothesis, not the other way around. Bad hypothesis and
bad
> > experiment gives bad theory. That is why lack of peer review is NOT a
> > non-sequitor.
> > Cooking theory, as it is in all other science, is derived from
experiment,
> > not experiment from theory. Equations come from experiment, not
experiment
> > from equations.
> > Lay people tend to think that theory comes first and experiment
> > proves -no, theory is the result of some experiment. Theory which can,
and
> > always may, be proven wrong by a better experiment.
> > Thus your citing theory derived from the experiment that created the
> > theory is never accepted - because it is a circular argument. )
>
> Do save these lectures. I have a minor in bio sciences and write popular
> science pieces.
>
> > 1) As to protein:
> > you state that protein will shrink and thus imply there is no
possibility
> > of the cell releasing water rapidly, even if I deliver heat (Q ) to the
cell
> > sufficiently rapidly to rupture the cell wall by boiling the fluid
inside
> > before it escapes.
>
> Protein will denature - shrink, if you prefer - when heat hits it.
> Period. In the process, it releases its captive water. Every time.
> Always. Do take a look at how proteins are structured in meat. You'll
> see that your understanding isn't correct. Muscle cells typically run
> the full length of the muscle and can be longer than a foot. When its
> cell integument is broken by heat, or less emphatically, chemical or
> mechanical action, the cellular fluids leak out. Muscle fibers *are*
> enormous cells. And they're comprised of many fibrils made of actin and
> myosin. Lean meat is about 75% water, 20% protein and 3% fat. The
> proteins are suspended in water, not the other way around.
>
> Raw meat isn't juicy. When you bite a raw steak, there's no appreciable
> leakage of juices. It's not until the cells get hot enough for the
> proteins to denature that fluids appear in the meat.
>
> > Hey, once that cell wall is ruptured, why do I care about protein? It
> > isn't in the mechanism except as fiber for my oil "varnish".
> >
> > (Besides, in my organic chemistry books, protein is molecular chain, and
> > does not "shrink". It breaks into amino acids or convolutes, but heat
does
> > not compress the space between the atoms of the protein molecules. only
lack
> > of heat shrinks a molecule. Check out molecular thermodynamics and
electron
> > levels as to why. )
>
> Right. More theory about the whole world when we're talking about meat.
> There's not just one kind of protein in meat. Check out a steak for the
> real-world story.
>
> Here are two paragraphs from "On Food and Cooking":
>
> "Early juiciness: Fibers coagulate
> One of the two major contracting filaments, the protein myosin, begins
> to coagulate at about 120°F/50°C; this lends each cell some solidity and
> the meat some firmness. As the myosin molecules bond to each other, they
> squeeze out some of the water molecules that had separated them. This
> water collects around the solidifying protein core, and is actively
> squeezed out of the cell by its thin, elastic sheath of connective
> tissue. In intact muscles, juices break through weak spots in the fiber
> sheaths. In chops and steaks, which are thin slices of whole muscles, it
> also escapes out the cut ends of the fibers. Meat served at this stage,
> the equivalent of rare, is firm and juicy.
>
> "Final juiciness: Collagen shrinks
> As the meat's temperature rises to 140°F/60°C, more of the proteins
> inside its cells coagulate and the cells become more segregated into a
> solid core of coagulated protein and a surrounding tube of liquid; so
> the meat gets progressively firmer and moister. Then between 140 and
> 150°F/60-65°C, the meat suddenly releases lots of juice, shrinks
> noticeably and becomes chewier. These changes are caused by the
> denaturing of collagen in the cells' connective-tissue sheaths, which
> shrink and exert new pressure on the fluid filled cells inside them. The
> fluid flows copiously, the piece of meat loses a sixth or more of its
> volume, and its protein fibers becomes more densely packed and so harder
> to cut through. Meat served in this temperature range, the equivalent of
> medium-rare is changing from juicy to dry."
> Harold McGee, "On Food and Cooking" pp150, 2004 edition.
>
> > 2) And you miss the main matrix mechanism because you neglect the
effects of
> > fat at high temp.
>
> Nope. No matrix mechanism because any meats raised to the temperatures
> you're talking about in this experiment would be long since crisped and
> inedible.
>
> > Try this experiment to demonstrate - put a thin layer of fat in your
hot
> > pan and let it sit for five minutes - hot enough and long enough so that
it
> > oxidizes into a layer akin to varnish. Then try to get water under that
> > changed-fat (like it in soapy boiling water).
>
> Meaningless experiment. That pan would have to be very hot for that
> polymerization to even begin to take place that quickly. What you're
> talking about is the equivalent of seasoning a cast iron skillet. It
> can't be done in 5 minutes. But, in any case, it's irrelevant. The
> polymerization happens on that extremely hot surface. It doesn't happen
> on the surface of meat or no one would want to eat it. Polymerized oils
> taste very, very bad, indeed.
>
> > Then do it at a lower temp and put it in soapy boiling water. Fat
> > releases.
> >
> > This demonstrates the change in fat for this theory is not linear, and
that
> > fat will create a water-resistant seal if the temp and heat is high
enough
>
> Nope. It'll do that on a very hot pan. That pan has to be well over
> 350°F to have the plastic formation of that oil. Meat surfaces that hot
> are past edibility. And since they have no heat sources of their own to
> keep them hot enough long enough for the polymerization, it's a
> meaningless point.
>
> > Then if you want to do a proper experiment for protein - do it again
in
> > three parts - add protein (for home, like white fish) to the hot hot and
> > less hot oil in both conditions, and now also include one fish piece
cooked
> > slowly - but this time remove the fish when you think it is done but not
> > cooked to jerky- equal time for each in the pan, normalized.
>
> Same amounts of time at extremely different temperatures? And you're
> going to say that the one cooked at the highest temperature will be the
> juiciest? Defining juicy - still retains much of its original moisture
> now liberated from cellular bonds.
>
> > Open the fish and confirm visually, and by measuring the fluid released
> > onto the plate for each.
>
> Easier to just weigh. More accurate, too.
>
> > Do it 33 times for a proper statistical experiment, or use the one
> > experiment as anecdotal.
>
> Don't need to do any experiments, and certainly not the ones above. Any
> trained restaurant cook can tell you what the results will be. They've
> been done and redone and reredone for millennia.
>
> I once got into a discussion with a guy who insisted that we could build
> a "space elevator" by taking a long loop of rope of some kind and
> putting the far end up at low earth orbit. His idea was that we could
> just tie stuff to the rope and pull it up. Nice idea. We don't have
> materials that could do that - no rope, no cable, no exotic metals, no
> sci-fi fibers, nothing - and we don't have materials in the foreseeable
> future than could. He kept trying to stick variables and theoretical
> conditions in, but when all was said and done, it's still impossible
> with current materials.
>
> This discussion is like that. As long as we deal with real meat and not
> organic chemistry books, it's not possible to seal the surface of meats
> because of their inherent structure. That's all. No matrices. No grease.
> No thermal gradients. No temperature.
>
> You're confusing cuisine with cautery.
>
> Pastorio
>
>
>
> >
> > "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>-- wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I know exactly why, scientifically, my meats retain juice when seared.
And
> >>>they definitely do.
> >>
> >>Then no need to discuss it further. Particularly after reading the
> >>material below. I'll just post a note and you may do as you will.
> >>
> >>
> >>> I also know why the experiments done on TV and elsewhere will always
> >>>"prove" there is no difference between searing and not, even though
there is
> >>>a difference. And they can be duplicated to "prove" there is no
difference.
> >>>They are not unusual in that respect -which only demonstrates why
properly
> >>>done peer review is so important.
> >>
> >>String of non sequiturs. Peer review won't overturn the biology and
> >>physics of the process.
> >>
> >>
> >>> They fail to show the difference because they do not understand the
> >>>release and the transport mechanism of the fluid to the surface,
> >>
> >>They don't really need to understand *how* it works, only *if* it works.
> >>But your explanation is wrong.
> >>
> >> > or they
> >>>fail to recognize it and take advantage of it.
> >>
> >>There's really not much to recognize. The mechanisms are pretty clear.
> >>
> >>
> >>>(see below)
> >>>
> >>>"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>-- wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the
esoteric
> >>>>>theory about supposedly how searing
> >>>>>1) doesn't make any difference
> >>>>>2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric
reasons.
> >>>>
> >>>>Nothing esoteric about it. Simple biology and physics. *No cooking
> >>>>process* seals juices in meat.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>1) Which ones do not ?
> >>> Point of my comment here is that you do not have an all-inclusive
list to
> >>>make such a broad statement with any validity. What you know and what
you
> >>>have seen demonstrates to you that there is the lack of differnce, but
that
> >>>cannot be extended to the logic that one does not exist.
> >>
> >>Given the nature of protein and the effect that heat has on the ones in
> >>meat, it's a safe assertion that no cooking method seals in juices. Heat
> >>applied to protein always shrinks it. Whether wet or dry heat. Whether
> >>high or low heat. Whether oil, water or metal surface. Whether from
> >>above, beneath or all around. Whether at atmospheric pressure or under
> >>pressure in a closed vessel. No known method seals juices in meats as
> >>they cook. All methods cause proteins to shrink and all shrinkage
> >>releases water.
> >>
> >>
> >>>2) Which mechanisms do seal juice in meat?
> >>> Point of my statement here is that since you do NOT have used the
ones
> >>>that do, that does not mean it does not exist, it only means you lack
> >>>knowledge of such mechanism. If you had one, then you would adopt the
new
> >>>conclusion and reject the old.
> >>
> >>It means that none exists. The nature of meat proteins is the
determinant.
> >
> >
> > no, it only means you have not found one that exists.
> >
> >
> >>> I do believe there are several that do exactly the sealing in in
non-pan
> >>>conditions-e.g., that deep frying chicken in batter and under pressure
has
> >>>been shown to seal in water. And at least one that does it in a pan.
> >>
> >>Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Frying chicken in batter (a *very*
> >>permeable covering) loses water and that can be shown by weighing the
> >>chicken before battering, and again after cooking and removing batter.
> >>The chicken weighs less. Always. That's why frying chicken sizzles and
> >>sputters. It's water hitting hot oil. Always.
> >>
> >>You keep ignoring that sizzling as though it weren't happening. How to
> >>explain it if it isn't water being heated to steam and making noise in
> >>the process?
> >>
> >>
> >>> 3) "Physics" says that if the surface is made impervious to liquid,
liquid
> >>>does not pass. So how to make it impervious? Lock the surface fibers
> >>>closed.
> >>
> >>There is no such mechanism. Protein shrinks when cooked. It opens spaces
> >>between cells and protein strands.
> >>
> >>
> >>> How to lock fibers closed? By sufficient heat (physics heat, not
> >>>temperature "heat") delivered to the external cells to swell them,
rupture
> >>>them, and bind their proteins into a new oil-saturated matrix. This
> >>>rematrixing is not a foreign process at all.
> >>
> >>Protein absolutely *doesn't* swell when heated. It shrinks and
> >>surrenders its captive water. Oil-saturated matrix, indeed. Nice science
> >>fiction. It doesn't happen. And it assumes that every bit of the surface
> >>is cooked at exactly the same rate to exactly the same finish. Meat
> >>doesn't cook that way. It browns unevenly.
> >
> >
> > yours - not mine. thus another reason I can, and you never do, retain
> > liquid.
> >
> > And how to include fats in this formula?
> >>
> >
> >
> > the transport for Q evenly to the surface, and the heat-changed fat that
> > helps create the seal.
> >
> >
> >>The water coming out of the meat is under pressure. Water is flashing
> >>over to steam while still inside the meat and forcing liquids out onto
> >>the cooking surface - it's sizzling. Water is leaving because protein is
> >>now heated enough to release it. The steam is venting out millions of
> >>cellular openings and pushing oil away.
> >>
> >>
> >>> (Note, however, that if I slow-sear, that is, sear with insufficient
heat
> >>>Q to not rupture, I only shrink the cells as their water is "weeped"
out. So
> >>>I must deliver sufficient Q heat to rupture rather than shrink, or I
have
> >>>left the gate open )
> >>
> >>There's no gate. The cells will shrink *no matter what* heat sufficient
> >>to cook you apply.
> >>
> >>
> >>> And oil impregnation of a matrix to prevent water passing thru the
matrix
> >>>is one of the most common forms of oil use. (called grease, a matrix of
> >>>fiber and "oil")
> >>
> >>Right. Except in a kitchen with food where no matrices are formed like
> >>the ones you're talking about. Oil impregnation is absolutely not going
> >>to happen when the oil is hot enough to cause water to flash over to
> >>steam. It pushes the oil out of the food. That's why properly fried food
> >>isn't oily. There is no matrix to impregnate. Grease doesn't need to
> >>include a fiber, it can be entirely chemical. But this is a red herring.
> >>The strands of denatured protein aren't available for the sort of
> >>combination you suggest.
> >>
> >>
> >>> 4) Next, meat does not have liquid sloshing around inside. It has it
> >>>trapped in cells, fact.
> >>
> >>And between cells.
> >>
> >>> It will remain in cells until some mechanism releases it, fact.
> >>> If it is not release it from the cells, it will not leave. Logic.
> >>> If I establish a non-linear temperature gradient such that the
interior
> >>>lacks the heat to release liquid from the cells during the time the
cells
> >>>are enclosed on an oil-impregnated matrix,
> >>
> >>There is no such matrix. And there is no such waterproofing going on.
> >>The steak sizzles the whole time it's cooking. It's the water leaving.
> >>This matrix is a nice theory, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. No
> >>one has seen such a matrix in rather concentrated study of these
processes.
> >
> >> > AND the liquid will not have
> >>>time to reach (transport to) the exterior matix, I will have the juice
at
> >>>serving time.
> >>
> >>Nope. Temperature is the absolute determinant of whether the water
> >>leaves the cells. At 120°, the exodus begins - that's already warmer
> >>than rare. When it gets past 140°, or about medium, it's a stampede.
> >>That sizzling you hear when it's cooking is the water leaving. Since
> >>there is no impermeable matrix, the juices leave. To see if it's so, all
> >>that has to be done is to weigh it before and after cooking.
> >>
> >>
> >>> (For the lay reader, that means that you can heat it fast enough to
raise
> >>>the interior temp and if you take appropriate steps, you will not lose
water
> >>>because the liquid lacks the time from release from the cell to
transit out
> >>>of the more-impervious-by-searing meat.
> >>
> >>Your assertion that the route out is impervious to water leaving is
> >>simply incorrect. Meat will sizzle the entire time it's cooking. If the
> >>juices were sealed in, that would stop.
> >>
> >>
> >>> But if you cook it below some rate of heat transfer into the cells
> >>>holding moisture, the moisture will have more time to leave before the
> >>>process is done.
> >>> So then for some range of heat transfer, surface and
internal,searing
> >>>and non-searing will have no difference on liquid left, and all
experiments
> >>>done below that rate of transfer will show no difference in the
methods)
> >>
> >>And what would that temperature be, according to this theory?
> >>
> >>
> >>>5) The rate of the fluid passing thru the fibers depends on the
viscosity of
> >>>water, capillary action, gravity, and pressure. The "thinner" the
water, the
> >>>more rapid the transfer. (water at 55F is half as viscous as water at
45F.
> >>>HALF as "thick")
> >>
> >><LOL> This is kitchen sink discourse. Throw everything in. Some is bound
> >>to stick. Lots of theoretical stuff, but there's a whole lot of
> >>empirical info available that throws it all out.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Destroy the capillary paths by establishing a non-capillary matrix on
the
> >>>surface, transfer by surface tension is reduced.
> >>
> >>It might be if this happened. It doesn't.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Lower the viscosity by having a cooler fluid barrier, the transfer
rate of
> >>>the thicker fluid drops.
> >>
> >><LOL> Grasping at straws. Right. As though is the real world, the
> >>viscosity differences will have a material effect on cooking meats.
> >>
> >>
> >>> E.g., use a thick piece of meat and turn it over immediately before
the
> >>>liquid gathers on the interior of the matrix at the bottom, you will
have
> >>>the transfer time back thru the meat before it will reach the matrix on
the
> >>>other side and leave the meat. Keep ahead of the fluid flow by
gravity, and
> >>>the fluid stays in.
> >>
> >>Nope. You're assuming that it's passively leaking out when in fact it's
> >>being squeezed out. That's why when cooking a steak on a hot surface,
> >>drops of juices will appear on the top surface. As protein fibers
> >>contract and the meat shrinks, surrendered water will be purged out at
> >>all exposed muscle tissue surfaces.
> >>
> >>And this "cooking" technique seems to require X-Ray vision. But, alas,
> >>it doesn't work. Muscle tissue is like a stranded rope. As it's heated,
> >>the individual strands shrink releasing their water. The surface can't
> >>be sealed because it's not a solid surface like a piece of metal.
> >>
> >>
> >>> If the searing barrier does not exist, it will leave by capillary
action
> >>>in the fibers in the tissue and not pool so that "ahead of the flow"
effect
> >>>can be used.
> >>> I can "sear" meat and have it lose water, and I can "sear " meat and
have
> >>>it not lose water.
> >>
> >>Weigh it. Then report back.
> >>
> >>
> >>> That concept of one experimenter able to set up an experiment
germaine
> >>>to the issue after many other have failed is the core of experiments on
> >>>things not available -
> >>>
> >>>in other words, if you can't do it, and your experiments have not shown
it
> >>>can be done, the reverse is not proven - i.e., such experiments do not
prove
> >>>it can't be done.
> >>
> >>But when the physical properties of the materials guarantee that it's
> >>looking like just another kind of perpetual motion machine, it fails by
> >>definition.
> >>
> >>
> >>> And when you find another experiemnt that shows it, that only means
you
> >>>did not know well enough of the mechanism.
> >>> When you see an experiment by others that shows it happening, that
not
> >>>only means it can work, it means you will need to change your
conclusion.
>
>
>
> >>I'm still waiting for it to happen. After testing hundreds of pieces of
> >>meat over three decades of trying, using essentially every temperature
> >>variation and material, virtually every cut, scrutinizing all possible
> >>cooking techniques, I'm very comfortable with my point here. It's
> >>empirically derived in the face of lots of alternate theories.
> >>
> >>I've tried this sealing in business with roasts and steaks. Searing and
> >>not. Oil-cooking and dry roasting. No matter what technique I tried, it
> >>always weighed less after cooking than before. Period. And the loss was
> >>not linear. Steaks cooked "bleu" or to 115 center temp lost least.
> >>Typically around 3 or 4%%. Rare (125) lost about 6%. Medium (145) lost
> >>about 12% Well done (160-165) lost about 18%. Charred well (190) lost
> >>upwards of 25%. Whether pan-seared, charbroiled (heat from beneath),
> >>grilled (steel bars over open flames), broiled (heat from above),
> >>oven-finished, the percentages remained virtually constant.
> >>
> >>Roasting beef rounds showed the same sort of numbers. We finally roasted
> >>them all at low temp (205 convection) to 125 internal with no searing.
> >>Of all the single-temp or combination temps, or single technique or
> >>multiple technique approaches we tried, that arrangement yielded the
> >>greatest return. We routinely lost around 9% of initial, trimmed weight.
> >>All roasts were left to warm at room temp for 2 hours or more. Steaks
> >>were cooked from refrigerated temperatures.
> >>
> >>All cooked meats were left to rest, although for differing amounts of
> >>time. We found that if meats were cut immediately after being taken from
> >>the heat source, that juices gushed and we lost a significant percentage
> >>of the weight of the meat. But if we waited a short time, they didn't
> >>gush, but flowed gently and with less volume. That's been explained by
> >>suggesting either, that some reversal of protein denaturing is possible,
> >>and that it happens with the cooling that happens during the resting
> >>period. Or, that the juices are leeching to the surfaces that were
> >>heated sufficiently to evaporate their moisture and filling in hte
> >>vacated spaces. Of course, if steaks are left for too long, they lose
> >>juices just in the waiting - on the plate. That pretty much defines a
> >>surface that's distinctly permeable.
> >>
> >>It is absolutely in the best interests of restaurateurs for the steaks
> >>to be juicy. And it's been a serious area of professional study - and no
> >>one has been able to seal meat. Period. All these theories just collapse
> >>in the face of biology and physics and empirical results.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once
again,
> >>>>>immediately after once again having proof of searing effects in my
pan -
> >>>>>Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth consistently
fails
> >>>>>the engineering test here on the range.
> >>>>
> >>>>Read Harold McGee's book "On Food and Cooking: the Science and Lore of
> >>>>the Kitchen" for full, detailed science.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>read it.
> >>> It has not undergone peer review,
> >>
> >>It has undergone the "review" of thousands and thousands of readers,
> >>many among them food scientists. The revised edition is 20 years after
> >>the first one and in that time, with the explanation that meats can't be
> >>sealed, no one has refuted it. No one has realistically challenged it.
> >>I'd suggest that 14 pages of fine print for the bibliography implies
> >>some serious scholarship, with about 40 references just for the meat
> >>chapter.
> >>
> >> > so while it is a point of view, and much of it is appears valid and
makes sense as the sun being the center of
> >>>the universe and phlogiston made sense and subatomic particles beign
the
> >>>smallest things made sense, it is hardly "full, detailed science"
> >>
> >>In the new edition, he expands his original discussion of what happens
> >>to meats in cooking. Complete with illustrations and good science to
> >>back it up. It's not a novel, it's a science text based on a huge
> >>bibliography and lots of direct experiments. The Smithsonian invited him
> >>to present material and he's been written about in their magazine. Not
> >>exactly lightweights.
> >>
> >>The other reality is that I trust McGee as a commentator and interpreter
> >>because in testing foods and processing for the past 30 years, there's
> >>little that I find to quibble about with his assertions that affect
> >>areas I've functioned in.
> >>
> >>
> >>>the information relayed below is excellent and valid in its
application.
> >>
> >>Which information? Yours or mine?
> >>
> >>
> >>>>The biology of protein explains what happens when meat is cooked. Your
> >>>>high heat denatured the surface protein more fully and caused it to
more
> >>>>fully surrender captive water-based juices and rendered fats. The
meats
> >>>>cooked at lower temperatures didn't have their proteins so fully
cooked,
> >>>>so retained their juices more fully. Leakage of juices is an
indication
> >>>>of degree of doneness, and that yours that leaked juice was more
cooked
> >>>>than theirs that didn't.
> >>>>
> >>>>Frying in oil will cause the surface of the meat to rapidly rise above
> >>>>the boiling point of water so internal juices won't reach the pan;
> >>>>they'll be both cooked onto the surface of the meat and evaporated.
> >>>>
> >>>>The degree of doneness of the meat will be the determinant of
juiciness.
> >>>>Your more cooked outside surrendered more juices to the pan and the
> >>>>surface of the meat in creating the Maillard effects of browning. If
the
> >>>>meat sizzled while you were cooking it, it means that juices were
being
> >>>>purged and cooked.
> >>>>
> >>>>The protein myosin begins contracting at about 120°F and squeezes
water
> >>>>out. Up between 140°F and 150°F, the meat will release much more juice
> >>>>when the cellular collagen denatures, shrinks and exerts pressure on
the
> >>>>fluid-filled cells inside them. At that point, meats will lose up to
1/6
> >>>>of their volume and begin to dry. This is approximately medium.
> >>>>
> >>>>The explanation and accompanying illustrations are more than I'm
willing
> >>>>to type in here, but Dr. McGee devotes a good amount of space -
several
> >>>>pages - to explain what happens to meat when it cooks.
> >>>>
> >>>>My experience in experimenting in all my restaurants with beef, pork,
> >>>>lamb, game (including lion, hippo, llama, gator, snake, bear, elk,
boar,
> >>>>etc.), poultry (domestic and wild), and goat meats - is that he's
right
> >>>>on the mark. Applies to roasts, steaks, braises, stews and any way to
> >>>>cook meats.
> >>>>
> >>>>Pastorio
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and
waiting to
> >>>>>trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today, occurred on
Tuesday eve:
> >>>>>- I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot
oil, med
> >>>>>hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower the heat and
do 4-5
> >>>>>min, and then cook it at the lower heat about 6 min a side back and
forth
> >>>>>until I think it is done.
> >>>>> Then, because it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but less
> >>>>>disturbing than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor
> >>>>>defrosting -especially frozen- with-bone chops).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the
cut and
> >>>>>into the (up til then) residue free pan,
> >>>>>a1) leaving pan residue.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid
cooks) do
> >>>>>not let out juice when cut.
> >>>>>b) My kid's meats (same stove, same pan, same lower temp, same
amount of
> >>>>>pink) do not drain when cut.
> >>>>>b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated drained
juice in
> >>>>>the pan deposited throughout the process.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's are
the
> >>>>>same light pink but dry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a
valid
> >>>>>protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but rather
available
> >>>>>juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but rather available
juice.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you
all for
> >>>>>the therapy....
> >>>>>
> >>>>>----------------
> >>>>>One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific understanding was
in his
> >>>>>phrase - "a million experiments can prove me right - but it only
takes one
> >>>>>to prove me wrong."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It's all in the protocol, baby.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>FWIW.

-- wrote:

> It seems pretty obvious that you have your version of phlogiston

**** you, you condescending asshole. If this is the way you deal with
facts, then you've revealed yourself to warrant hiding behind that
non-signature you use. The sneering "rebuttals" to Harold McGee are all
that needs to be seen. His science is supported by a large bibliography
and actual experimentation, as well as consultation with other
scientists. Yours is from the misunderstood experiment of an amateur,
uninformed, would-be cook.

You are of the profoundly mistaken notion that only you have ever tested
this phenomenon. It's typical of your other postings that you assert
your exclusive grasp on the truth irrespective of substantive,
contrarian information given you. And so it is here. You rant and rave
about your experiment and its effects and sneer yet more about what
results people get from cooking meat. You pit your extremely limited
experience against that of many others here who are skilled and
knowledgeable. Do take note that no one chimed in to support your position.

You dismiss literally decades of practical experience from professional
culinarians. You dismiss the work of many food scientists who've done
these experiments in laboratory conditions, and many more testing how
to improve succulence in meats. Because your meat seems juicy to you,
in the vacuum of your own kitchen.

> firmly
> fixed, that you will never accept any experiments to the contrary of your
> personal view, and that you have never published or done any experiments
> validated by others.

I'm not going to continue with you on this. Your ad hominem here is just
as much bullshit as your airy theories about the mechanisms you claim to
understand. You have no idea what my background is, although you should
after the two exchanges we've had. My science education is more than
adequate to deal with this subject, and the education I've acquired in
the past 20 years of actually working with cutting-edge scientists makes
me more than passing comfortable here. The fact that you just don't
understand the issues and sciences you're dealing with is beyond my
willingness to explain further. You're deliberately ignorant.

All your explanations from all your sources are simply fragmented and
inapplicable. Rather than investigate meat, you've gone all over the
spectrum gathering bits and snippets to confirm your flawed
understanding. And where you haven't found any, you lecture and posture
and sermonize to try to embellish your bullshit non-credentials.
Sneering in the absence of actual data. Nothing weighed. Nothing
measured. Nothing quantified. Results like that would get you laughed
out of a high school lab, much less a professional one.

> Your results and your conclusions are as valid as your method and your
> open-mindedness from the yadd yadda Pastore BS-machine.
>
> FI - I did the experiment once again yesterday: oil, no oil; various temps;
> examined the surface under magnification; measured water passing thru
> surfaces.

Spare us all this amount of pure crap. Measured steam. Measured vapors.
Measured seepage. From all sides. Sure you did. While it was cooking
when there was no sizzling (!). Give it up, PeeWee, you're digging it
deeper. You simply couldn't have measured the water loss at home. I note
you didn't talk about weight at all. No indices of any kind. Some scientist.

> The surface was sealed under my conditions.
> The results stand, and apparently are in conflict with your theory.
>
> So I guess you will eat your dry meat while I eat juicy meat, and you can
> regale yourself in the blissful ignorance of your dry-chew smothered in
> ketchup that there is no better way possible, knowing you were "right" as
> you masticate ad infinitum -- or you can amend your theory to eat meat that
> is actually juicy.

The simple fact is that you've demonstrated that you don't really know
what you're doing in the kitchen. I've served literally hundreds of
thousands of steaks over the years. And roasts. And stews. And braises.
And marinated meats. And brined meats.

I've designed meat products (a line of marinated tri-tips, three
injected skirt steaks, four different dry-seasoned boneless roasts,
pressure-roasted beef, seasoned pork loins, smoked and marinated chops,
etc.) working with meat experts and food scientists from major
meat-packaging companies and spice/flavor houses.

Your nasty denigration is utterly at odds with the realities I've lived
with in all my restaurants and all the meat products I've designed and
lab-tested for retail sale. And all the papers I've heard at
professional conferences and all the conditions food scientists working
with meats have as corollaries to their work.

> I will ignore your inane comment about how this is technical followed by
> your comment about what I said applied to protein in general and thus my
> comment was too technical.

Not too technical. Bullshit. Not the way it actually is. Theory, not
fact. Go see what protein cells actually look like in meat. See what a
fiber is. Read specifically about meat. Not some abstraction from a
textbook 40 years old from your college days.

> from your cite of the hole-ridden theorist -

Could you be more ironically dense...?

Pastorio



>>"Early juiciness: Fibers coagulate
>>One of the two major contracting filaments, the protein myosin, begins
>>to coagulate at about 120°F/50°C; this lends each cell some solidity and
>>the meat some firmness. As the myosin molecules bond to each other, they
>>squeeze out some of the water molecules that had separated them.
>
> Think about this chicken or egg circular theory -
>
> 1) the proteins bond, squeezing water -
>
> 2) the proteins are separated, bonding across the water of separation, and
> by implication (since this water is lost and found several times) not using
> the water in the bonding?
>
> which is it?
>
> Oh, I see - they somehow touch a little -not too much, or it won't work, or
> too little or it won't work it's jusst right. Just enough to make this
> theory work - ok, but then
>
> This
>
>>water collects around the solidifying protein core,
>
>
> 3) solidifying protein core, as in solid wall, as in matrix ? Should I have
> said a "solid protein core" that holds oil earlier instead of matrix? Would
> you have gotten that?
>
> So he says the water squeezes out and collects around the matrix
>
> 4) >and is actively squeezed out of the cell
>
> this water was the one before the protein bonded, then where it wasn't
> because of the "protein core", then where it is now back again to squeeze
> the cell which wasn't there before. Ok.
>
>
>>by its thin, elastic sheath of connective
>>tissue.
>
>
> And what was this tissue doing during the water-in-water-out-water-in thing?
> Now we have connective tissue squeezing. Ok. Whatever it takes to get the
> water squeezed out, since we already used it/lost it/blocked in the matrix.
>
> In intact muscles, juices break through weak spots in the fiber
>
>>sheaths.
>
>
> "Weak spots"? Can't you find a better cite than this?
>
> So per his theory, if I have free range longhorn beef, with strong muscles
> from running all day, it is a lot juicier than the old weak angus with weak
> leaky fibers, the prime one that sat around the feedlot and went soft.
>
> Hooyah! Your theory answer to juicy meat is run the cattle a lot!
>
>
>>In chops and steaks, which are thin slices of whole muscles, it
>>also escapes out the cut ends of the fibers. Meat served at this stage,
>>the equivalent of rare, is firm and juicy.
>>
>
>
> Firm? Has this guy ever cooked (sorry, fried) anything?
> Ok, Fred, the way you tell if meat is rare, is that it is firm. The
> myosin will bind into a matrix, so touch it with a fork - rare is firm.
>
>
>>"Final juiciness: Collagen shrinks
>>As the meat's temperature rises to 140°F/60°C, more of the proteins
>>inside its cells coagulate and the cells become more segregated into a
>>solid core of coagulated protein and a surrounding tube of liquid; so
>>the meat gets progressively firmer and moister. Then between 140 and
>>150°F/60-65°C, the meat suddenly releases lots of juice, shrinks
>>noticeably and becomes chewier.
>
>
> Suddenly? Would that be scientifically "SUDDenly ! or Suddenly. Or
> suddenly....
> Not up on that scientific term "suddenly". Maybe he didn't have a time (or
> it seems a mechanism) to get from A to B.
>
> And all done by the unexplained method of magic release, apparently.
>
> Ok, so water release makes it chewier? No, that's not consistent with his
> earlier comments.
> OK, Water loss, perhaps? Does water make things tender?
>
> Eureka ! He's done it again ! We feed the longhorns water before
> slaughter (we'll have to work around the studies that show this doesn't
> work, but it's a minor detail for the scientists who accept it), then water
> plus strong muscle fiber makes for juicy meat !
> (So why do people waste their money on prime marbled meat if it's the
> proteins and water and no weak spots that is the secret - fools parted with
> their money, apparently)
>
> Say - if I can divide this scientific "suddenly" into the three sequential
> parts (he did not say simultaneous) , I can get juice before the meat
> shrinks - and etc.
> Unfortunately, this mechanism which chefs so ardently seek is not
> addressed -no word, no hint - just a jump by the author to the magic big
> three - it is that magic which the author has yet to find, and sort of
> missed - this 160F "magic" of his.
>
> Even if the inconsistencies could be resolved, simple frying vs cooking
> would seem to doom your cite to the trash. Wet pot roast....
>
> These changes are caused by the
>
>>denaturing
>
>
> unfolding the protein to render it biologically inactive? ALL THE PROTEINS?
> No wonder he has tough meat. He has all his proteins unfolded.
>
> of collagen in the cells' connective-tissue sheaths, which
>
>>shrink and exert new pressure on the fluid filled cells inside them.
>
>
> Unfolding the proteins causes them to shrink..... hmmm. odd. Unfold and
> squeeze. At the same time. Trick.
>
> The
>
>>fluid flows copiously, the piece of meat loses a sixth or more of its
>>volume, and its protein fibers becomes more densely packed and so harder
>>to cut through.
>
>
> "It's protein fibers becomes more densely packed " like in a matrix on the
> surface of the meat, IF YOU DID THIS IN THE FIRST THREE MINUTES
> OF COOKING? Like when SEARING ?! And fill it with oil, oil that does not let
> water pass? At least in this dimension, water and oil are immiscible.
>
> Meat served in this temperature range, the equivalent of
>
>>medium-rare is changing from juicy to dry."
>>Harold McGee, "On Food and Cooking" pp150, 2004 edition.
>
>
> enough - the book was weak before, its weak still.
>
>
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>-- wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I do respect your expertise and empirical observations and citations
>
> which
>
>>>you have laid out so well in your responses. And I fully understand why
>
> you
>
>>>believe what you believe about searing.
>>>
>>> However, your extension to theory sometimes juxtaposes elements, and
>
> your
>
>>>belief that an experiment proves a right is misplaced.
>>
>>Yadda, yadda. Save the pontificating. Just present facts. I tested the
>>hypothesis that meat surfaces could be sealed. I found it to be
>>impossible with all known cooking technique.
>>
>>
>>> (The scientific search is for the replicable experiment that
>
> contradicts
>
>>>present theory, which then leads to scrutiny, real world experience,
>
> and
>
>>>further experiments which will contradict that new theory. From that
>>>discourse and experimentation come advancements in understanding.)
>>
>>This is irrelevant to empirical results.
>>
>>
>>> You confuse proteins with cells. And you continually refer to protein
>
> ..Give
>
>>>up the protein fixation from a book you read and instead focus on the
>
> fat -
>
>>>and the process becomes clear.
>>
>>Lose the attitude. My scientific background is plenty good enough to run
>>this race. I'm not confusing anything here. The fat simply doesn't
>>behave the way you posit that it does. And it's protein fibers that are
>>the major players here. You keep trying to manufacture mechanisms that
>>don't happen in meat. Your suppositions are based on misinterpreting the
>>biochemical and physiological actions that happen in meat that's being
>>cooked. And a too-simple understanding of what happens when a
>>combination of proteins are subjected to heat.
>>
>>
>>> And no, unlike your chop, my chop does NOT sizzle the same thru the
>>>entire time of cooking. I have "fat sizzle" until I cut into it,
>>
>>Fats don't sizzle by themselves. They heat, they smoke and they burn. At
>>no time in cooking fats do they make any noise unless there's water in
>>contact with them. Fats don't boil - there no such thing as a cauldron
>>of boiling oil, unless something else is in there. They don't make noise
>>at all by themselves.
>>
>> > at which
>>
>>>time I have "water sizzle" -thus the reason for my description as to pan
>>>residue. And apparently yours has the same sizzle throughout, meaning
>
> your
>
>>>process indeed fails to seal.
>>
>><LOL> Forgive me. Since fat doesn't sizzle without a water-based
>>diluent, this is exactly proving my point. Without water being purged,
>>there is no sizzle.
>>
>>Sizzling can *only* come from water being rapidly boiled or flashing
>>over to steam. Nothing else makes noise in cooking a piece of meat. The
>>changing sound of the sizzle (and it's real) is because as the meat
>>crosses that 120° point, it slows its release of fluids until it hits
>>140° or so when it starts up again. There will be three "voices" as
>>French chefs say. It's a well-recognized phenomenon.
>>
>>
>>> And your reluctance to accept another method which on the surface
>
> appears
>
>>>to be the same is understandable
>>>
>>> (Note that in science, by definition the theory comes from the
>
> experiment
>
>>>applied to a hypothesis, not the other way around. Bad hypothesis and
>
> bad
>
>>>experiment gives bad theory. That is why lack of peer review is NOT a
>>>non-sequitor.
>>> Cooking theory, as it is in all other science, is derived from
>
> experiment,
>
>>>not experiment from theory. Equations come from experiment, not
>
> experiment
>
>>>from equations.
>>> Lay people tend to think that theory comes first and experiment
>>>proves -no, theory is the result of some experiment. Theory which can,
>
> and
>
>>>always may, be proven wrong by a better experiment.
>>> Thus your citing theory derived from the experiment that created the
>>>theory is never accepted - because it is a circular argument. )
>>
>>Do save these lectures. I have a minor in bio sciences and write popular
>>science pieces.
>>
>>
>>>1) As to protein:
>>> you state that protein will shrink and thus imply there is no
>
> possibility
>
>>>of the cell releasing water rapidly, even if I deliver heat (Q ) to the
>
> cell
>
>>>sufficiently rapidly to rupture the cell wall by boiling the fluid
>
> inside
>
>>>before it escapes.
>>
>>Protein will denature - shrink, if you prefer - when heat hits it.
>>Period. In the process, it releases its captive water. Every time.
>>Always. Do take a look at how proteins are structured in meat. You'll
>>see that your understanding isn't correct. Muscle cells typically run
>>the full length of the muscle and can be longer than a foot. When its
>>cell integument is broken by heat, or less emphatically, chemical or
>>mechanical action, the cellular fluids leak out. Muscle fibers *are*
>>enormous cells. And they're comprised of many fibrils made of actin and
>>myosin. Lean meat is about 75% water, 20% protein and 3% fat. The
>>proteins are suspended in water, not the other way around.
>>
>>Raw meat isn't juicy. When you bite a raw steak, there's no appreciable
>>leakage of juices. It's not until the cells get hot enough for the
>>proteins to denature that fluids appear in the meat.
>>
>>
>>> Hey, once that cell wall is ruptured, why do I care about protein? It
>>>isn't in the mechanism except as fiber for my oil "varnish".
>>>
>>>(Besides, in my organic chemistry books, protein is molecular chain, and
>>>does not "shrink". It breaks into amino acids or convolutes, but heat
>
> does
>
>>>not compress the space between the atoms of the protein molecules. only
>
> lack
>
>>>of heat shrinks a molecule. Check out molecular thermodynamics and
>
> electron
>
>>>levels as to why. )
>>
>>Right. More theory about the whole world when we're talking about meat.
>>There's not just one kind of protein in meat. Check out a steak for the
>>real-world story.
>>
>>Here are two paragraphs from "On Food and Cooking":
>>
>>"Early juiciness: Fibers coagulate
>>One of the two major contracting filaments, the protein myosin, begins
>>to coagulate at about 120°F/50°C; this lends each cell some solidity and
>>the meat some firmness. As the myosin molecules bond to each other, they
>>squeeze out some of the water molecules that had separated them. This
>>water collects around the solidifying protein core, and is actively
>>squeezed out of the cell by its thin, elastic sheath of connective
>>tissue. In intact muscles, juices break through weak spots in the fiber
>>sheaths. In chops and steaks, which are thin slices of whole muscles, it
>>also escapes out the cut ends of the fibers. Meat served at this stage,
>>the equivalent of rare, is firm and juicy.
>>
>>"Final juiciness: Collagen shrinks
>>As the meat's temperature rises to 140°F/60°C, more of the proteins
>>inside its cells coagulate and the cells become more segregated into a
>>solid core of coagulated protein and a surrounding tube of liquid; so
>>the meat gets progressively firmer and moister. Then between 140 and
>>150°F/60-65°C, the meat suddenly releases lots of juice, shrinks
>>noticeably and becomes chewier. These changes are caused by the
>>denaturing of collagen in the cells' connective-tissue sheaths, which
>>shrink and exert new pressure on the fluid filled cells inside them. The
>>fluid flows copiously, the piece of meat loses a sixth or more of its
>>volume, and its protein fibers becomes more densely packed and so harder
>>to cut through. Meat served in this temperature range, the equivalent of
>>medium-rare is changing from juicy to dry."
>>Harold McGee, "On Food and Cooking" pp150, 2004 edition.
>>
>>
>>>2) And you miss the main matrix mechanism because you neglect the
>
> effects of
>
>>>fat at high temp.
>>
>>Nope. No matrix mechanism because any meats raised to the temperatures
>>you're talking about in this experiment would be long since crisped and
>>inedible.
>>
>>
>>> Try this experiment to demonstrate - put a thin layer of fat in your
>
> hot
>
>>>pan and let it sit for five minutes - hot enough and long enough so that
>
> it
>
>>>oxidizes into a layer akin to varnish. Then try to get water under that
>>>changed-fat (like it in soapy boiling water).
>>
>>Meaningless experiment. That pan would have to be very hot for that
>>polymerization to even begin to take place that quickly. What you're
>>talking about is the equivalent of seasoning a cast iron skillet. It
>>can't be done in 5 minutes. But, in any case, it's irrelevant. The
>>polymerization happens on that extremely hot surface. It doesn't happen
>>on the surface of meat or no one would want to eat it. Polymerized oils
>>taste very, very bad, indeed.
>>
>>
>>> Then do it at a lower temp and put it in soapy boiling water. Fat
>>>releases.
>>>
>>> This demonstrates the change in fat for this theory is not linear, and
>
> that
>
>>>fat will create a water-resistant seal if the temp and heat is high
>
> enough
>
>>Nope. It'll do that on a very hot pan. That pan has to be well over
>>350°F to have the plastic formation of that oil. Meat surfaces that hot
>>are past edibility. And since they have no heat sources of their own to
>>keep them hot enough long enough for the polymerization, it's a
>>meaningless point.
>>
>>
>>> Then if you want to do a proper experiment for protein - do it again
>
> in
>
>>>three parts - add protein (for home, like white fish) to the hot hot and
>>>less hot oil in both conditions, and now also include one fish piece
>
> cooked
>
>>>slowly - but this time remove the fish when you think it is done but not
>>>cooked to jerky- equal time for each in the pan, normalized.
>>
>>Same amounts of time at extremely different temperatures? And you're
>>going to say that the one cooked at the highest temperature will be the
>>juiciest? Defining juicy - still retains much of its original moisture
>>now liberated from cellular bonds.
>>
>>
>>> Open the fish and confirm visually, and by measuring the fluid released
>>>onto the plate for each.
>>
>>Easier to just weigh. More accurate, too.
>>
>>
>>> Do it 33 times for a proper statistical experiment, or use the one
>>>experiment as anecdotal.
>>
>>Don't need to do any experiments, and certainly not the ones above. Any
>>trained restaurant cook can tell you what the results will be. They've
>>been done and redone and reredone for millennia.
>>
>>I once got into a discussion with a guy who insisted that we could build
>>a "space elevator" by taking a long loop of rope of some kind and
>>putting the far end up at low earth orbit. His idea was that we could
>>just tie stuff to the rope and pull it up. Nice idea. We don't have
>>materials that could do that - no rope, no cable, no exotic metals, no
>>sci-fi fibers, nothing - and we don't have materials in the foreseeable
>>future than could. He kept trying to stick variables and theoretical
>>conditions in, but when all was said and done, it's still impossible
>>with current materials.
>>
>>This discussion is like that. As long as we deal with real meat and not
>>organic chemistry books, it's not possible to seal the surface of meats
>>because of their inherent structure. That's all. No matrices. No grease.
>>No thermal gradients. No temperature.
>>
>>You're confusing cuisine with cautery.
>>
>>Pastorio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>-- wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I know exactly why, scientifically, my meats retain juice when seared.
>
> And
>
>>>>>they definitely do.
>>>>
>>>>Then no need to discuss it further. Particularly after reading the
>>>>material below. I'll just post a note and you may do as you will.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I also know why the experiments done on TV and elsewhere will always
>>>>>"prove" there is no difference between searing and not, even though
>
> there is
>
>>>>>a difference. And they can be duplicated to "prove" there is no
>
> difference.
>
>>>>>They are not unusual in that respect -which only demonstrates why
>
> properly
>
>>>>>done peer review is so important.
>>>>
>>>>String of non sequiturs. Peer review won't overturn the biology and
>>>>physics of the process.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> They fail to show the difference because they do not understand the
>>>>>release and the transport mechanism of the fluid to the surface,
>>>>
>>>>They don't really need to understand *how* it works, only *if* it works.
>>>>But your explanation is wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>or they
>>>>>fail to recognize it and take advantage of it.
>>>>
>>>>There's really not much to recognize. The mechanisms are pretty clear.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>(see below)
>>>>>
>>>>>"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>-- wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ok, I have seen the experiments and read and fully understand the
>
> esoteric
>
>>>>>>>theory about supposedly how searing
>>>>>>>1) doesn't make any difference
>>>>>>>2) colder pan and temp seals in more for a variety of esoteric
>
> reasons.
>
>>>>>>Nothing esoteric about it. Simple biology and physics. *No cooking
>>>>>>process* seals juices in meat.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>1) Which ones do not ?
>>>>> Point of my comment here is that you do not have an all-inclusive
>
> list to
>
>>>>>make such a broad statement with any validity. What you know and what
>
> you
>
>>>>>have seen demonstrates to you that there is the lack of differnce, but
>
> that
>
>>>>>cannot be extended to the logic that one does not exist.
>>>>
>>>>Given the nature of protein and the effect that heat has on the ones in
>>>>meat, it's a safe assertion that no cooking method seals in juices. Heat
>>>>applied to protein always shrinks it. Whether wet or dry heat. Whether
>>>>high or low heat. Whether oil, water or metal surface. Whether from
>>>>above, beneath or all around. Whether at atmospheric pressure or under
>>>>pressure in a closed vessel. No known method seals juices in meats as
>>>>they cook. All methods cause proteins to shrink and all shrinkage
>>>>releases water.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>2) Which mechanisms do seal juice in meat?
>>>>> Point of my statement here is that since you do NOT have used the
>
> ones
>
>>>>>that do, that does not mean it does not exist, it only means you lack
>>>>>knowledge of such mechanism. If you had one, then you would adopt the
>
> new
>
>>>>>conclusion and reject the old.
>>>>
>>>>It means that none exists. The nature of meat proteins is the
>
> determinant.
>
>>>
>>>no, it only means you have not found one that exists.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I do believe there are several that do exactly the sealing in in
>
> non-pan
>
>>>>>conditions-e.g., that deep frying chicken in batter and under pressure
>
> has
>
>>>>>been shown to seal in water. And at least one that does it in a pan.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Frying chicken in batter (a *very*
>>>>permeable covering) loses water and that can be shown by weighing the
>>>>chicken before battering, and again after cooking and removing batter.
>>>>The chicken weighs less. Always. That's why frying chicken sizzles and
>>>>sputters. It's water hitting hot oil. Always.
>>>>
>>>>You keep ignoring that sizzling as though it weren't happening. How to
>>>>explain it if it isn't water being heated to steam and making noise in
>>>>the process?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>3) "Physics" says that if the surface is made impervious to liquid,
>
> liquid
>
>>>>>does not pass. So how to make it impervious? Lock the surface fibers
>>>>>closed.
>>>>
>>>>There is no such mechanism. Protein shrinks when cooked. It opens spaces
>>>>between cells and protein strands.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> How to lock fibers closed? By sufficient heat (physics heat, not
>>>>>temperature "heat") delivered to the external cells to swell them,
>
> rupture
>
>>>>>them, and bind their proteins into a new oil-saturated matrix. This
>>>>>rematrixing is not a foreign process at all.
>>>>
>>>>Protein absolutely *doesn't* swell when heated. It shrinks and
>>>>surrenders its captive water. Oil-saturated matrix, indeed. Nice science
>>>>fiction. It doesn't happen. And it assumes that every bit of the surface
>>>>is cooked at exactly the same rate to exactly the same finish. Meat
>>>>doesn't cook that way. It browns unevenly.
>>>
>>>
>>>yours - not mine. thus another reason I can, and you never do, retain
>>>liquid.
>>>
>>>And how to include fats in this formula?
>>>
>>>
>>>the transport for Q evenly to the surface, and the heat-changed fat that
>>>helps create the seal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The water coming out of the meat is under pressure. Water is flashing
>>>>over to steam while still inside the meat and forcing liquids out onto
>>>>the cooking surface - it's sizzling. Water is leaving because protein is
>>>>now heated enough to release it. The steam is venting out millions of
>>>>cellular openings and pushing oil away.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> (Note, however, that if I slow-sear, that is, sear with insufficient
>
> heat
>
>>>>>Q to not rupture, I only shrink the cells as their water is "weeped"
>
> out. So
>
>>>>>I must deliver sufficient Q heat to rupture rather than shrink, or I
>
> have
>
>>>>>left the gate open )
>>>>
>>>>There's no gate. The cells will shrink *no matter what* heat sufficient
>>>>to cook you apply.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And oil impregnation of a matrix to prevent water passing thru the
>
> matrix
>
>>>>>is one of the most common forms of oil use. (called grease, a matrix of
>>>>>fiber and "oil")
>>>>
>>>>Right. Except in a kitchen with food where no matrices are formed like
>>>>the ones you're talking about. Oil impregnation is absolutely not going
>>>>to happen when the oil is hot enough to cause water to flash over to
>>>>steam. It pushes the oil out of the food. That's why properly fried food
>>>>isn't oily. There is no matrix to impregnate. Grease doesn't need to
>>>>include a fiber, it can be entirely chemical. But this is a red herring.
>>>>The strands of denatured protein aren't available for the sort of
>>>>combination you suggest.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>4) Next, meat does not have liquid sloshing around inside. It has it
>>>>>trapped in cells, fact.
>>>>
>>>>And between cells.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It will remain in cells until some mechanism releases it, fact.
>>>>> If it is not release it from the cells, it will not leave. Logic.
>>>>> If I establish a non-linear temperature gradient such that the
>
> interior
>
>>>>>lacks the heat to release liquid from the cells during the time the
>
> cells
>
>>>>>are enclosed on an oil-impregnated matrix,
>>>>
>>>>There is no such matrix. And there is no such waterproofing going on.
>>>>The steak sizzles the whole time it's cooking. It's the water leaving.
>>>>This matrix is a nice theory, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. No
>>>>one has seen such a matrix in rather concentrated study of these
>
> processes.
>
>>>>>AND the liquid will not have
>>>>>time to reach (transport to) the exterior matix, I will have the juice
>
> at
>
>>>>>serving time.
>>>>
>>>>Nope. Temperature is the absolute determinant of whether the water
>>>>leaves the cells. At 120°, the exodus begins - that's already warmer
>>>>than rare. When it gets past 140°, or about medium, it's a stampede.
>>>>That sizzling you hear when it's cooking is the water leaving. Since
>>>>there is no impermeable matrix, the juices leave. To see if it's so, all
>>>>that has to be done is to weigh it before and after cooking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> (For the lay reader, that means that you can heat it fast enough to
>
> raise
>
>>>>>the interior temp and if you take appropriate steps, you will not lose
>
> water
>
>>>>>because the liquid lacks the time from release from the cell to
>
> transit out
>
>>>>>of the more-impervious-by-searing meat.
>>>>
>>>>Your assertion that the route out is impervious to water leaving is
>>>>simply incorrect. Meat will sizzle the entire time it's cooking. If the
>>>>juices were sealed in, that would stop.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But if you cook it below some rate of heat transfer into the cells
>>>>>holding moisture, the moisture will have more time to leave before the
>>>>>process is done.
>>>>> So then for some range of heat transfer, surface and
>
> internal,searing
>
>>>>>and non-searing will have no difference on liquid left, and all
>
> experiments
>
>>>>>done below that rate of transfer will show no difference in the
>
> methods)
>
>>>>And what would that temperature be, according to this theory?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>5) The rate of the fluid passing thru the fibers depends on the
>
> viscosity of
>
>>>>>water, capillary action, gravity, and pressure. The "thinner" the
>
> water, the
>
>>>>>more rapid the transfer. (water at 55F is half as viscous as water at
>
> 45F.
>
>>>>>HALF as "thick")
>>>>
>>>><LOL> This is kitchen sink discourse. Throw everything in. Some is bound
>>>>to stick. Lots of theoretical stuff, but there's a whole lot of
>>>>empirical info available that throws it all out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Destroy the capillary paths by establishing a non-capillary matrix on
>
> the
>
>>>>>surface, transfer by surface tension is reduced.
>>>>
>>>>It might be if this happened. It doesn't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Lower the viscosity by having a cooler fluid barrier, the transfer
>
> rate of
>
>>>>>the thicker fluid drops.
>>>>
>>>><LOL> Grasping at straws. Right. As though is the real world, the
>>>>viscosity differences will have a material effect on cooking meats.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> E.g., use a thick piece of meat and turn it over immediately before
>
> the
>
>>>>>liquid gathers on the interior of the matrix at the bottom, you will
>
> have
>
>>>>>the transfer time back thru the meat before it will reach the matrix on
>
> the
>
>>>>>other side and leave the meat. Keep ahead of the fluid flow by
>
> gravity, and
>
>>>>>the fluid stays in.
>>>>
>>>>Nope. You're assuming that it's passively leaking out when in fact it's
>>>>being squeezed out. That's why when cooking a steak on a hot surface,
>>>>drops of juices will appear on the top surface. As protein fibers
>>>>contract and the meat shrinks, surrendered water will be purged out at
>>>>all exposed muscle tissue surfaces.
>>>>
>>>>And this "cooking" technique seems to require X-Ray vision. But, alas,
>>>>it doesn't work. Muscle tissue is like a stranded rope. As it's heated,
>>>>the individual strands shrink releasing their water. The surface can't
>>>>be sealed because it's not a solid surface like a piece of metal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If the searing barrier does not exist, it will leave by capillary
>
> action
>
>>>>>in the fibers in the tissue and not pool so that "ahead of the flow"
>
> effect
>
>>>>>can be used.
>>>>> I can "sear" meat and have it lose water, and I can "sear " meat and
>
> have
>
>>>>>it not lose water.
>>>>
>>>>Weigh it. Then report back.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That concept of one experimenter able to set up an experiment
>
> germaine
>
>>>>>to the issue after many other have failed is the core of experiments on
>>>>>things not available -
>>>>>
>>>>>in other words, if you can't do it, and your experiments have not shown
>
> it
>
>>>>>can be done, the reverse is not proven - i.e., such experiments do not
>
> prove
>
>>>>>it can't be done.
>>>>
>>>>But when the physical properties of the materials guarantee that it's
>>>>looking like just another kind of perpetual motion machine, it fails by
>>>>definition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And when you find another experiemnt that shows it, that only means
>
> you
>
>>>>>did not know well enough of the mechanism.
>>>>> When you see an experiment by others that shows it happening, that
>
> not
>
>>>>>only means it can work, it means you will need to change your
>
> conclusion.
>
>>
>>
>>>>I'm still waiting for it to happen. After testing hundreds of pieces of
>>>>meat over three decades of trying, using essentially every temperature
>>>>variation and material, virtually every cut, scrutinizing all possible
>>>>cooking techniques, I'm very comfortable with my point here. It's
>>>>empirically derived in the face of lots of alternate theories.
>>>>
>>>>I've tried this sealing in business with roasts and steaks. Searing and
>>>>not. Oil-cooking and dry roasting. No matter what technique I tried, it
>>>>always weighed less after cooking than before. Period. And the loss was
>>>>not linear. Steaks cooked "bleu" or to 115 center temp lost least.
>>>>Typically around 3 or 4%%. Rare (125) lost about 6%. Medium (145) lost
>>>>about 12% Well done (160-165) lost about 18%. Charred well (190) lost
>>>>upwards of 25%. Whether pan-seared, charbroiled (heat from beneath),
>>>>grilled (steel bars over open flames), broiled (heat from above),
>>>>oven-finished, the percentages remained virtually constant.
>>>>
>>>>Roasting beef rounds showed the same sort of numbers. We finally roasted
>>>>them all at low temp (205 convection) to 125 internal with no searing.
>>>>Of all the single-temp or combination temps, or single technique or
>>>>multiple technique approaches we tried, that arrangement yielded the
>>>>greatest return. We routinely lost around 9% of initial, trimmed weight.
>>>>All roasts were left to warm at room temp for 2 hours or more. Steaks
>>>>were cooked from refrigerated temperatures.
>>>>
>>>>All cooked meats were left to rest, although for differing amounts of
>>>>time. We found that if meats were cut immediately after being taken from
>>>>the heat source, that juices gushed and we lost a significant percentage
>>>>of the weight of the meat. But if we waited a short time, they didn't
>>>>gush, but flowed gently and with less volume. That's been explained by
>>>>suggesting either, that some reversal of protein denaturing is possible,
>>>>and that it happens with the cooling that happens during the resting
>>>>period. Or, that the juices are leeching to the surfaces that were
>>>>heated sufficiently to evaporate their moisture and filling in hte
>>>>vacated spaces. Of course, if steaks are left for too long, they lose
>>>>juices just in the waiting - on the plate. That pretty much defines a
>>>>surface that's distinctly permeable.
>>>>
>>>>It is absolutely in the best interests of restaurateurs for the steaks
>>>>to be juicy. And it's been a serious area of professional study - and no
>>>>one has been able to seal meat. Period. All these theories just collapse
>>>>in the face of biology and physics and empirical results.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>and then I saw an annoying reference to the "no-diff" myth once
>
> again,
>
>>>>>>>immediately after once again having proof of searing effects in my
>
> pan -
>
>>>>>>>Sorry, the contrarians' "no-diff" and "lower-heat" myth consistently
>
> fails
>
>>>>>>>the engineering test here on the range.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Read Harold McGee's book "On Food and Cooking: the Science and Lore of
>>>>>>the Kitchen" for full, detailed science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>read it.
>>>>> It has not undergone peer review,
>>>>
>>>>It has undergone the "review" of thousands and thousands of readers,
>>>>many among them food scientists. The revised edition is 20 years after
>>>>the first one and in that time, with the explanation that meats can't be
>>>>sealed, no one has refuted it. No one has realistically challenged it.
>>>>I'd suggest that 14 pages of fine print for the bibliography implies
>>>>some serious scholarship, with about 40 references just for the meat
>>>>chapter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>so while it is a point of view, and much of it is appears valid and
>
> makes sense as the sun being the center of
>
>>>>>the universe and phlogiston made sense and subatomic particles beign
>
> the
>
>>>>>smallest things made sense, it is hardly "full, detailed science"
>>>>
>>>>In the new edition, he expands his original discussion of what happens
>>>>to meats in cooking. Complete with illustrations and good science to
>>>>back it up. It's not a novel, it's a science text based on a huge
>>>>bibliography and lots of direct experiments. The Smithsonian invited him
>>>>to present material and he's been written about in their magazine. Not
>>>>exactly lightweights.
>>>>
>>>>The other reality is that I trust McGee as a commentator and interpreter
>>>>because in testing foods and processing for the past 30 years, there's
>>>>little that I find to quibble about with his assertions that affect
>>>>areas I've functioned in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>the information relayed below is excellent and valid in its
>
> application.
>
>>>>Which information? Yours or mine?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>The biology of protein explains what happens when meat is cooked. Your
>>>>>>high heat denatured the surface protein more fully and caused it to
>
> more
>
>>>>>>fully surrender captive water-based juices and rendered fats. The
>
> meats
>
>>>>>>cooked at lower temperatures didn't have their proteins so fully
>
> cooked,
>
>>>>>>so retained their juices more fully. Leakage of juices is an
>
> indication
>
>>>>>>of degree of doneness, and that yours that leaked juice was more
>
> cooked
>
>>>>>>than theirs that didn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Frying in oil will cause the surface of the meat to rapidly rise above
>>>>>>the boiling point of water so internal juices won't reach the pan;
>>>>>>they'll be both cooked onto the surface of the meat and evaporated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The degree of doneness of the meat will be the determinant of
>
> juiciness.
>
>>>>>>Your more cooked outside surrendered more juices to the pan and the
>>>>>>surface of the meat in creating the Maillard effects of browning. If
>
> the
>
>>>>>>meat sizzled while you were cooking it, it means that juices were
>
> being
>
>>>>>>purged and cooked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The protein myosin begins contracting at about 120°F and squeezes
>
> water
>
>>>>>>out. Up between 140°F and 150°F, the meat will release much more juice
>>>>>>when the cellular collagen denatures, shrinks and exerts pressure on
>
> the
>
>>>>>>fluid-filled cells inside them. At that point, meats will lose up to
>
> 1/6
>
>>>>>>of their volume and begin to dry. This is approximately medium.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The explanation and accompanying illustrations are more than I'm
>
> willing
>
>>>>>>to type in here, but Dr. McGee devotes a good amount of space -
>
> several
>
>>>>>>pages - to explain what happens to meat when it cooks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My experience in experimenting in all my restaurants with beef, pork,
>>>>>>lamb, game (including lion, hippo, llama, gator, snake, bear, elk,
>
> boar,
>
>>>>>>etc.), poultry (domestic and wild), and goat meats - is that he's
>
> right
>
>>>>>>on the mark. Applies to roasts, steaks, braises, stews and any way to
>>>>>>cook meats.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pastorio
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>One of many examples seen here, refuting the no-diff myth and
>
> waiting to
>
>>>>>>>trigger my ire when I saw the myth repeated today, occurred on
>
> Tuesday eve:
>
>>>>>>>- I cooked a thick boneless chop in the normal way - iron pan, hot
>
> oil, med
>
>>>>>>>hi, 4-5 min on the first side and then turn, then lower the heat and
>
> do 4-5
>
>>>>>>>min, and then cook it at the lower heat about 6 min a side back and
>
> forth
>
>>>>>>>until I think it is done.
>>>>>>> Then, because it is thick and pork, I cut it (ok, heresy - but less
>>>>>>>disturbing than finding a cold red slab of pork inside due to poor
>>>>>>>defrosting -especially frozen- with-bone chops).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>a) Once again, like clockwork, the juice flooded heavily out the
>
> cut and
>
>>>>>>>into the (up til then) residue free pan,
>>>>>>>a1) leaving pan residue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The non-seared meats cooked only at the lower heat (like my kid
>
> cooks) do
>
>>>>>>>not let out juice when cut.
>>>>>>>b) My kid's meats (same stove, same pan, same lower temp, same
>
> amount of
>
>>>>>>>pink) do not drain when cut.
>>>>>>>b1) The pan, however, has the tell-tale residue of heated drained
>
> juice in
>
>>>>>>>the pan deposited throughout the process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not juicy, like mine. Like mine with juice sealed in. The kid's are
>
> the
>
>>>>>>>same light pink but dry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Anecdotal, repeated sufficiently to approach statistically valid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So to whomever did the original experiments: try it again with a
>
> valid
>
>>>>>>>protocol and germaine criterion. Not weight loss, but rather
>
> available
>
>>>>>>>juice. Not molecular rearrangement theory, but rather available
>
> juice.
>
>>>>>>>Ok - got that annoyance off my chest... feeling better - thank you
>
> all for
>
>>>>>>>the therapy....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----------------
>>>>>>>One of Einstein's great contribution to scientific understanding was
>
> in his
>
>>>>>>>phrase - "a million experiments can prove me right - but it only
>
> takes one
>
>>>>>>>to prove me wrong."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's all in the protocol, baby.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>FWIW.
>
>
>