Bob (this one) wrote:

> -- wrote:
>
>> "Bubba" > 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> I am reminded of the scientist that teaches a frog to jump on command.
>>> He then amputates all four of the frog's legs and tells him to jump.
>>> The frog, of course, does not. The conclusion? Cutting off a frog's
>>> legs renders them deaf!
>>>
>>> Bubba
>>>
>>
>>
>> Absolutely on the mark -- I love this story.
>>
>
> Whoooooosh
>
> Pastorio

And way over, too!

Bubba


--
You wanna measure, or you wanna cook?