-- 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.
>
>