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.
> >
> >