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.