>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
> >
>
>