-- 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.