"isw" > wrote in message
]...
> In article om>,
> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>
>> George wrote:
>>
>> >>>> http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
>> >>>
>> >>> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler (Igloo,
>> >>> Coleman, etc.). One could do wonderful things with those inexpensive
>> >>> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper cuts.
>> >>> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. I should
>> >>> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous
>> >>> vide
>> >>> cooker.
>> >>
>> >> Obviously I'm missing something here. If you take a cheap, tough
>> >> piece
>> >> of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end up
>> >> with
>> >> a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
>> >>
>> > You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer time (>
>> > 24
>> > hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the collagen
>> > into
>> > gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get the
>> > great
>> > beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost flavorless
>> > like
>> > a filet.
>>
>> There are plenty of tough cuts which don't *have* the connective tissue
>> you
>> mention. Cooking them for a long period of time just makes them dry,
>> since
>> the proteins contract and drive the water out.
>
> Not if you keep the temperature low enough (and sous-vide does). If
> proteins don't contract at 131 F in one minute (as, say, when you pull
> that rare steak from the pan), then they won't contract after 24 hours
> at that same temperature -- the denaturing of proteins is temperature
> dependent, but not time dependent. But the collagen (or some of it)
> *will* break down. Give it a try.
>
> Isaac
>
>
We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in Cooks
Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the meat is
not under vacuum and submerged. The eye of round goes into a very low temp
oven. You put the eye of round in a 225F oven, and roast very slowly to
115F. Then you turn off the oven and let it sit for about an hour, or until
the internal temp. reaches 132F. It was excellent, pink
end to end and very tasty. Sliced thin it wasn't dry at all. You sear the
meat on very high heat, either before or after the roasting. I don't think
a meat like chuck would work.

Kent

Kent wrote:

> We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in
> Cooks Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the
> meat is not under vacuum and submerged. The eye of round goes into a very
> low temp oven. You put the eye of round in a 225F oven, and roast very
> slowly to 115F. Then you turn off the oven and let it sit for about an
> hour, or until the internal temp. reaches 132F. It was excellent, pink
> end to end and very tasty. Sliced thin it wasn't dry at all. You sear the
> meat on very high heat, either before or after the roasting. I don't
> think a meat like chuck would work.

Interesting! Thanks, Kent.

Bob

On Nov 7, 8:45*pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> Kent wrote:
> > We did something like this with eye of round. *There was an article in
> > Cooks Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the
> > meat is not under vacuum and submerged. The eye of round goes into a very
> > low temp oven. *You put the eye of round in a 225F oven, and roast very
> > slowly to 115F. Then you turn off the oven and let it sit for about an
> > hour, or until the internal temp. reaches 132F. *It was excellent, pink
> > end to end and very tasty. Sliced thin it wasn't dry at all. You sear the
> > meat on very high heat, either before or after the roasting. I *don't
> > think a meat like chuck would work.

See, I've done it with chuck, but never round. After searing, I put
the chuck roast into water, uncovered and kept the heat as low as my
oven would go, turning the oven off a few times in the process. It
worked well, though certainly not great.
>
> Interesting! Thanks, Kent.
>
> Bob

--Bryan

On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:45:19 -0800, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Kent wrote:
>
>> We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in
>> Cooks Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the
>> meat is not under vacuum and submerged. The eye of round goes into a very
>> low temp oven. You put the eye of round in a 225F oven, and roast very
>> slowly to 115F. Then you turn off the oven and let it sit for about an
>> hour, or until the internal temp. reaches 132F. It was excellent, pink
>> end to end and very tasty. Sliced thin it wasn't dry at all. You sear the
>> meat on very high heat, either before or after the roasting. I don't
>> think a meat like chuck would work.
>
> Interesting! Thanks, Kent.

A piece of meat roasted at 225F will not rise from 115F to 132F
once the oven is turned off unless you have some sort of super,
space age insulated oven.

Kent often doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

-sw

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:45:19 -0800, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
> > Kent wrote:
> >
> >> We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in
> >> Cooks Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the
> >> meat is not under vacuum and submerged. The eye of round goes into a very
> >> low temp oven. You put the eye of round in a 225F oven, and roast very
> >> slowly to 115F. Then you turn off the oven and let it sit for about an
> >> hour, or until the internal temp. reaches 132F. It was excellent, pink
> >> end to end and very tasty. Sliced thin it wasn't dry at all. You sear the
> >> meat on very high heat, either before or after the roasting. I don't
> >> think a meat like chuck would work.
> >
> > Interesting! Thanks, Kent.
>
> A piece of meat roasted at 225F will not rise from 115F to 132F
> once the oven is turned off unless you have some sort of super,
> space age insulated oven.

Why not? The rise in temperature of the inside of a large piece of meat
after removing it from the oven is well-known. Going from 115 to 123 is
perhaps a bit more than would be the case with the roast sitting on the
counter, but left in the oven, I can see it happening.

The problem I have with all recipes of that sort is that they depend
rather heavily on the specific characteristics of a given oven/room
temperature/etc. and may not produce the same results in a different
environment.

Isaac

On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 21:37:09 -0800, isw wrote:

> In article >,
> Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:45:19 -0800, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>>
>>> Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in
>>>> Cooks Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the
>>>> meat is not under vacuum and submerged. The eye of round goes into a very
>>>> low temp oven. You put the eye of round in a 225F oven, and roast very
>>>> slowly to 115F. Then you turn off the oven and let it sit for about an
>>>> hour, or until the internal temp. reaches 132F. It was excellent, pink
>>>> end to end and very tasty. Sliced thin it wasn't dry at all. You sear the
>>>> meat on very high heat, either before or after the roasting. I don't
>>>> think a meat like chuck would work.
>>>
>>> Interesting! Thanks, Kent.
>>
>> A piece of meat roasted at 225F will not rise from 115F to 132F
>> once the oven is turned off unless you have some sort of super,
>> space age insulated oven.
>
> Why not? The rise in temperature of the inside of a large piece of meat
> after removing it from the oven is well-known.

Yes, when you cook it at a high heat (over 300F). Having roasted
dozens of rib roasts, round tips, whole top sirloins, etc at
250-265F I can tell you that they will rise not more than another
2, maybe 3 degrees tops. Not 17 degrees. Not by far.

-sw

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:45:19 -0800, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
>> Kent wrote:
>>
>>> We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in
>>> Cooks Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since
>>> the
>>> meat is not under vacuum and submerged. The eye of round goes into a
>>> very
>>> low temp oven. You put the eye of round in a 225F oven, and roast very
>>> slowly to 115F. Then you turn off the oven and let it sit for about an
>>> hour, or until the internal temp. reaches 132F. It was excellent, pink
>>> end to end and very tasty. Sliced thin it wasn't dry at all. You sear
>>> the
>>> meat on very high heat, either before or after the roasting. I don't
>>> think a meat like chuck would work.
>>
>> Interesting! Thanks, Kent.
>
> A piece of meat roasted at 225F will not rise from 115F to 132F
> once the oven is turned off unless you have some sort of super,
> space age insulated oven.
>
> Kent often doesn't know WTF he's talking about.
>
> -sw
>
>
The above is from a recipe followed exactly from Cooks Illustrated. It does
work. It works great.

Little boy squirt, I thought you'd killfiled me.

Kent

I have one of those Quasar microwaves with a temperature control probe
which I use for sous vide. If you have one, or a similar one, perhaps
you can try your hand at an easy sous vide without an expensive water
bath piece of equipment -- at least as an experiment.

-Take a boneless chicken breast (season if you want)

-Place it in a vacuum bag and remove all the air (I use the FoodSaver
system)

-Place a two quart Pyrex bowl or measuring container with sufficient
water to cover your chicken package in the microwave and heat it to
130 degrees using the temperature probe (do not have the chicken in
the water at this time - you want the water to temperature - first)

-When temperature is reached, THEN place the chicken package in the
water container. Make sure it is submerged (you may have to put a non-
metalic weight on top of the package to keep it under the water)

-Continue to microwave at Medium with a temperature setting of 130
degrees. Cycles will be mostly off as all it is doing is keeping the
water at 130 degrees. There will be some microwaving of the chicken so
that is why I select 130 degrees rather than the published 140
degrees. [If you like your chicken 'more done' then use higher
temperatures]

-You can wrap the container with the water and chicken package with a
towel to keep heat in and to cut down the microwaving

-Leave the chicken in the hot water bath in the microwave for at least
40 minutes

-Result: great evenly cooked tender juicy chicken. You'de be surprised
how good.

PS: I also use my temperature probe microwave to make large batches of
yogurt. Very easy to do. I've written about it before.

Gary Hayman
Greenbelt, Maryland

In article
>,
zydecogary > wrote:

> I have one of those Quasar microwaves with a temperature control probe
> which I use for sous vide. If you have one, or a similar one, perhaps
> you can try your hand at an easy sous vide without an expensive water
> bath piece of equipment -- at least as an experiment.
>
> -Take a boneless chicken breast (season if you want)
>
> -Place it in a vacuum bag and remove all the air (I use the FoodSaver
> system)
>
> -Place a two quart Pyrex bowl or measuring container with sufficient
> water to cover your chicken package in the microwave and heat it to
> 130 degrees using the temperature probe (do not have the chicken in
> the water at this time - you want the water to temperature - first)
>
> -When temperature is reached, THEN place the chicken package in the
> water container. Make sure it is submerged (you may have to put a non-
> metalic weight on top of the package to keep it under the water)
>
> -Continue to microwave at Medium with a temperature setting of 130
> degrees. Cycles will be mostly off as all it is doing is keeping the
> water at 130 degrees. There will be some microwaving of the chicken so
> that is why I select 130 degrees rather than the published 140
> degrees. [If you like your chicken 'more done' then use higher
> temperatures]
>
> -You can wrap the container with the water and chicken package with a
> towel to keep heat in and to cut down the microwaving
>
> -Leave the chicken in the hot water bath in the microwave for at least
> 40 minutes
>
> -Result: great evenly cooked tender juicy chicken. You'de be surprised
> how good.

Very clever. But since chicken is mostly water, there's no reason to
believe, as you suggest, that the chicken could be anything like 10 F
warmer than the water it's floating in.

And note that 130 F may not be sufficient to kill salmonella, *no matter
how long* you cook the chicken. How accurate is your temperature probe?
(My guess: probably not better than +/- 2 F and likely somewhat worse.)
If it errs on the high side, salmonella is even more likely not to be
eliminated.

I'd suggest you check around for recommended time-temperature profiles
for killing salmonella.

Isaac

On Nov 14, 12:18*am, isw > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
-- snip --
>
> Very clever. But since chicken is mostly water, there's no reason to
> believe, as you suggest, that the chicken could be anything like 10 F
> warmer than the water it's floating in.-
-snip --
>
> Isaac- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Very true about the temperature. But the chicken, itself will become a
little more excited with the microwaves than the water accounting for
it's (slight) difference in temperature.

If one is worried, since you really can't take an easy temperature
through the vacummed bag immersed in the water, I would then increase
the microwave's probe setting to 140 (or more) to be on the safe side
as you suggested.

The whole idea for using this technique is for those new to the idea,
to test Sous Vide at home before they spend $400 for a professional
machine or $300 for parts to build their own.

Since one never knows, in a restaurant, if Sous Vide is being used
(I've never seen it printed on a menu -- but maybe asking the waiter
to check with the chef might produce honest (or not) results, it is
kind of important for one to try it out first and learn how good it
can be in many instances, prompting them to become more involved with
the technique at home.

The same goes for a Induction Hob. Most Americans, but not Europeans,
do not know much or anything about Induction cooking. It's a shame,
for once they do, perhaps like me, would switch over.

Gary Hayman
http://bit.ly/GarysInfo

On Nov 13, 11:18*pm, isw > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
> *zydecogary > wrote:
> > I have one of those Quasar microwaves with a temperature control probe
> > which I use for sous vide. If you have one, or a similar one, perhaps
> > you can try your hand at an easy sous vide without an expensive water
> > bath piece of equipment -- at least as an experiment.
>
> > -Take a boneless chicken breast (season if you want)
>
> > -Place it in a vacuum bag and remove all the air (I use the FoodSaver
> > system)
>
> > -Place a two quart Pyrex bowl or measuring container with sufficient
> > water to cover your chicken package in the microwave and heat it to
> > 130 degrees using the temperature probe (do not have the chicken in
> > the water at this time - you want the water to temperature - first)
>
> > -When temperature is reached, THEN place the chicken package in the
> > water container. Make sure it is submerged (you may have to put a non-
> > metalic weight on top of the package to keep it under the water)
>
> > -Continue to microwave at Medium with a temperature setting of 130
> > degrees. Cycles will be mostly off as all it is doing is keeping the
> > water at 130 degrees. There will be some microwaving of the chicken so
> > that is why I select 130 degrees rather than the published 140
> > degrees. [If you like your chicken 'more done' then use higher
> > temperatures]
>
> > -You can wrap the container with the water and chicken package with a
> > towel to keep heat in and to cut down the microwaving
>
> > -Leave the chicken in the hot water bath in the microwave for at least
> > 40 minutes
>
> > -Result: great evenly cooked tender juicy chicken. You'de be surprised
> > how good.
>
> Very clever. But since chicken is mostly water, there's no reason to
> believe, as you suggest, that the chicken could be anything like 10 F
> warmer than the water it's floating in.
>
> And note that 130 F may not be sufficient to kill salmonella, *no matter
> how long* you cook the chicken. How accurate is your temperature probe?
> (My guess: probably not better than +/- 2 F and likely somewhat worse.)
> If it errs on the high side, salmonella is even more likely not to be
> eliminated.
>
> I'd suggest you check around for recommended time-temperature profiles
> for killing salmonella.

I sure as heck wouldn't do it, but I would NEVER put uncooked meat of
any kind into a microwave. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't
mean you SHOULD.
>
> Isaac

--Bryan

On Nov 13, 11:18*pm, isw > wrote:
> And note that 130 F may not be sufficient to kill salmonella, *no matter
> how long* you cook the chicken. How accurate is your temperature probe?
> (My guess: probably not better than +/- 2 F and likely somewhat worse.)
> If it errs on the high side, salmonella is even more likely not to be
> eliminated.

Bryan and I were on the telephone while we discussed thermocouples and
temperature controllers. The Series TCS Thermocouple Temperature
Switch model TCS-4010:

http://www.mod-tronic.com/Love_Tempe...witch_TCS.html

which has a temp accuracy of +-1% and uses type J or type K
thermocouples. These thermocouples derive their temperature
discrimination and thus their voltage output from the metals of which
they are contructed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocouple#Types

We decided on a type J thermocouple, an iron-constantan thermocouple
because it's is more sensitive than the K type, thus will produce a
little more accurate reading of the temperature.

Of course after construction a test run with an accurate thermometer
in the waterbath will be in order. Time to drink more beer too, while
we wait for the waterbath to come to temp!! :-) And I believe Bryan is
more interested in this Sous Vide cooker for cooking beef more than
chicken, which as Bryan and I were discussing we sometimes will eat
raw anyway! And neither of us are in any way immunocompromised in any
way, quite the opposite most likely!

John Kuthe...

On Nov 14, 10:04*am, John Kuthe > wrote:
> On Nov 13, 11:18*pm, isw > wrote:
>
> > And note that 130 F may not be sufficient to kill salmonella, *no matter
> > how long* you cook the chicken. How accurate is your temperature probe?
> > (My guess: probably not better than +/- 2 F and likely somewhat worse.)
> > If it errs on the high side, salmonella is even more likely not to be
> > eliminated.
>
> Bryan and I were on the telephone while we discussed thermocouples and
> temperature controllers. The Series TCS Thermocouple Temperature
> Switch model TCS-4010:
>
> http://www.mod-tronic.com/Love_Tempe...witch_TCS.html
>
> which has a temp accuracy of +-1% and uses type J or type K
> thermocouples. These thermocouples derive their temperature
> discrimination and thus their voltage output from the metals of which
> they are contructed:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocouple#Types
>
> We decided on a type J thermocouple, an iron-constantan thermocouple
> because it's is more sensitive than the K type, thus will produce a
> little more accurate reading of the temperature.
>
> Of course after construction a test run with an accurate thermometer
> in the waterbath will be in order. Time to drink more beer too, while
> we wait for the waterbath to come to temp!! :-) And I believe Bryan is
> more interested in this Sous Vide cooker for cooking beef more than
> chicken, which as Bryan and I were discussing we sometimes will eat
> raw anyway! And neither of us are in any way immunocompromised in any
> way, quite the opposite most likely!

The way you worded that makes it look like we eat raw chicken.
>
> John Kuthe...

--Bryan

In article >,
"Kent" > wrote:

> "isw" > wrote in message
> ]...
> > In article om>,
> > "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
> >
> >> George wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>> http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler (Igloo,
> >> >>> Coleman, etc.). One could do wonderful things with those inexpensive
> >> >>> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper cuts.
> >> >>> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. I should
> >> >>> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous
> >> >>> vide
> >> >>> cooker.
> >> >>
> >> >> Obviously I'm missing something here. If you take a cheap, tough
> >> >> piece
> >> >> of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end up
> >> >> with
> >> >> a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
> >> >>
> >> > You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer time (>
> >> > 24
> >> > hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the collagen
> >> > into
> >> > gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get the
> >> > great
> >> > beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost flavorless
> >> > like
> >> > a filet.
> >>
> >> There are plenty of tough cuts which don't *have* the connective tissue
> >> you
> >> mention. Cooking them for a long period of time just makes them dry,
> >> since
> >> the proteins contract and drive the water out.
> >
> > Not if you keep the temperature low enough (and sous-vide does). If
> > proteins don't contract at 131 F in one minute (as, say, when you pull
> > that rare steak from the pan), then they won't contract after 24 hours
> > at that same temperature -- the denaturing of proteins is temperature
> > dependent, but not time dependent. But the collagen (or some of it)
> > *will* break down. Give it a try.
> >
> > Isaac
> >
> >
> We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in Cooks
> Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the meat is
> not under vacuum and submerged.

Insofar as home-cooking sous vide is concerned, I don't think the
"vacuum" part is very important. The main points are to cook in a
liquid, which conducts heat far better than air, and to isolate the
product from the cooking liquid so the flavor doesn't get diluted.

Restaurant sous vide cooking (cook, flash chill, rewarm when an order
comes in) is a very different thing.

Isaac

"isw" > wrote in message
]...
> In article >,
> "Kent" > wrote:
>
>> "isw" > wrote in message
>> ]...
>> > In article om>,
>> > "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> George wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>> http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler
>> >> >>> (Igloo,
>> >> >>> Coleman, etc.). One could do wonderful things with those
>> >> >>> inexpensive
>> >> >>> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper
>> >> >>> cuts.
>> >> >>> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. I
>> >> >>> should
>> >> >>> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous
>> >> >>> vide
>> >> >>> cooker.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Obviously I'm missing something here. If you take a cheap, tough
>> >> >> piece
>> >> >> of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end up
>> >> >> with
>> >> >> a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
>> >> >>
>> >> > You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer time
>> >> > (>
>> >> > 24
>> >> > hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the
>> >> > collagen
>> >> > into
>> >> > gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get the
>> >> > great
>> >> > beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost
>> >> > flavorless
>> >> > like
>> >> > a filet.
>> >>
>> >> There are plenty of tough cuts which don't *have* the connective
>> >> tissue
>> >> you
>> >> mention. Cooking them for a long period of time just makes them dry,
>> >> since
>> >> the proteins contract and drive the water out.
>> >
>> > Not if you keep the temperature low enough (and sous-vide does). If
>> > proteins don't contract at 131 F in one minute (as, say, when you pull
>> > that rare steak from the pan), then they won't contract after 24 hours
>> > at that same temperature -- the denaturing of proteins is temperature
>> > dependent, but not time dependent. But the collagen (or some of it)
>> > *will* break down. Give it a try.
>> >
>> > Isaac
>> >
>> >
>> We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in
>> Cooks
>> Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the meat
>> is
>> not under vacuum and submerged.
>
> Insofar as home-cooking sous vide is concerned, I don't think the
> "vacuum" part is very important. The main points are to cook in a
> liquid, which conducts heat far better than air, and to isolate the
> product from the cooking liquid so the flavor doesn't get diluted.
>
> Restaurant sous vide cooking (cook, flash chill, rewarm when an order
> comes in) is a very different thing.
>
> Isaac
>
>
I thought as you that the vacuum part isn't important. I put a piece of
sirloin into a ziplock bag, and sucked out the air. I warmed it very very
slowly to 130F in water. It didn't work. The air spaces between the plastic
and the meat kept the meat from cooking. If you're going to cook in liquid
slowly the meat has to be in a vacuum to allow heat transfer from liquid
through the plastic to the meat. The same principle, however, does work in
a very low temp oven as above. It's just not sous vide or "under vacuum".
I've done it with eye of round. I haven't tried to cook a thick sirloin in
this way.

Kent

In article >,
"Kent" > wrote:

> "isw" > wrote in message
> ]...
> > In article >,
> > "Kent" > wrote:
> >
> >> "isw" > wrote in message
> >> ]...
> >> > In article om>,
> >> > "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> George wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>>> http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler
> >> >> >>> (Igloo,
> >> >> >>> Coleman, etc.). One could do wonderful things with those
> >> >> >>> inexpensive
> >> >> >>> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper
> >> >> >>> cuts.
> >> >> >>> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. I
> >> >> >>> should
> >> >> >>> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous
> >> >> >>> vide
> >> >> >>> cooker.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Obviously I'm missing something here. If you take a cheap, tough
> >> >> >> piece
> >> >> >> of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end up
> >> >> >> with
> >> >> >> a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer time
> >> >> > (>
> >> >> > 24
> >> >> > hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the
> >> >> > collagen
> >> >> > into
> >> >> > gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get the
> >> >> > great
> >> >> > beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost
> >> >> > flavorless
> >> >> > like
> >> >> > a filet.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are plenty of tough cuts which don't *have* the connective
> >> >> tissue
> >> >> you
> >> >> mention. Cooking them for a long period of time just makes them dry,
> >> >> since
> >> >> the proteins contract and drive the water out.
> >> >
> >> > Not if you keep the temperature low enough (and sous-vide does). If
> >> > proteins don't contract at 131 F in one minute (as, say, when you pull
> >> > that rare steak from the pan), then they won't contract after 24 hours
> >> > at that same temperature -- the denaturing of proteins is temperature
> >> > dependent, but not time dependent. But the collagen (or some of it)
> >> > *will* break down. Give it a try.
> >> >
> >> > Isaac
> >> >
> >> >
> >> We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in
> >> Cooks
> >> Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the meat
> >> is
> >> not under vacuum and submerged.
> >
> > Insofar as home-cooking sous vide is concerned, I don't think the
> > "vacuum" part is very important. The main points are to cook in a
> > liquid, which conducts heat far better than air, and to isolate the
> > product from the cooking liquid so the flavor doesn't get diluted.
> >
> > Restaurant sous vide cooking (cook, flash chill, rewarm when an order
> > comes in) is a very different thing.
> >
> > Isaac
> >
> >
> I thought as you that the vacuum part isn't important. I put a piece of
> sirloin into a ziplock bag, and sucked out the air. I warmed it very very
> slowly to 130F in water. It didn't work. The air spaces between the plastic
> and the meat kept the meat from cooking.

Well, that's odd, because that's exactly what I did -- using "ZipLok"
freezer bags and the little pump they provide for them. Worked fine.

And I've read that *as long as you get rid of air bubbles*, you don't
even need the vacuum. I've seen descriptions of that method on line.
Basically, you submerge the bag slowly, and let the water push the air
up and out.

But if your description describes what you actually did: "warmed it very
very slowly to 130F in water", that's not sous vide. You need to put the
meat in water that's already at 130 F (or whatever), and keep it at that
temperature for quite a while -- say an hour or more. Lots more (24-48
hours) if you're wanting to tenderize a tough cut.

Isaac

On Nov 11, 11:19*pm, isw > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *"Kent" > wrote:
> > "isw" > wrote in message
> > ]...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Kent" > wrote:
>
> > >> "isw" > wrote in message
> > >> ]...
> > >> > In article om>,
> > >> > "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>
> > >> >> George wrote:
>
> > >> >> >>>>http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
>
> > >> >> >>>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
>
> > >> >> >>> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler
> > >> >> >>> (Igloo,
> > >> >> >>> Coleman, etc.). *One could do wonderful things with those
> > >> >> >>> inexpensive
> > >> >> >>> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper
> > >> >> >>> cuts.
> > >> >> >>> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. *I
> > >> >> >>> should
> > >> >> >>> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous
> > >> >> >>> vide
> > >> >> >>> cooker.
>
> > >> >> >> Obviously I'm missing something here. *If you take a cheap, tough
> > >> >> >> piece
> > >> >> >> of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end up
> > >> >> >> with
> > >> >> >> a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
>
> > >> >> > You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer time
> > >> >> > (>
> > >> >> > 24
> > >> >> > hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the
> > >> >> > collagen
> > >> >> > into
> > >> >> > gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get the
> > >> >> > great
> > >> >> > beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost
> > >> >> > flavorless
> > >> >> > like
> > >> >> > a filet.
>
> > >> >> There are plenty of tough cuts which don't *have* the connective
> > >> >> tissue
> > >> >> you
> > >> >> mention. Cooking them for a long period of time just makes them dry,
> > >> >> since
> > >> >> the proteins contract and drive the water out.
>
> > >> > Not if you keep the temperature low enough (and sous-vide does). If
> > >> > proteins don't contract at 131 F in one minute (as, say, when you pull
> > >> > that rare steak from the pan), then they won't contract after 24 hours
> > >> > at that same temperature -- the denaturing of proteins is temperature
> > >> > dependent, but not time dependent. But the collagen (or some of it)
> > >> > *will* break down. Give it a try.
>
> > >> > Isaac
>
> > >> We did something like this with eye of round. *There was an article in
> > >> Cooks
> > >> Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the meat
> > >> is
> > >> not under vacuum and submerged.
>
> > > Insofar as home-cooking sous vide is concerned, I don't think the
> > > "vacuum" part is very important. The main points are to cook in a
> > > liquid, which conducts heat far better than air, and to isolate the
> > > product from the cooking liquid so the flavor doesn't get diluted.
>
> > > Restaurant sous vide cooking (cook, flash chill, rewarm when an order
> > > comes in) is a very different thing.
>
> > > Isaac
>
> > I thought as you that the vacuum part isn't important. I put a piece of
> > sirloin into a ziplock bag, and sucked out the air. I warmed it very very
> > slowly to 130F in water. It didn't work. The air spaces between the plastic
> > and the meat kept the meat from cooking.
>
> Well, that's odd, because that's exactly what I did -- using "ZipLok"
> freezer bags and the little pump they provide for them. Worked fine.
>
> And I've read that *as long as you get rid of air bubbles*, you don't
> even need the vacuum. I've seen descriptions of that method on line.
> Basically, you submerge the bag slowly, and let the water push the air
> up and out.
>
> But if your description describes what you actually did: "warmed it very
> very slowly to 130F in water", that's not sous vide. You need to put the
> meat in water that's already at 130 F (or whatever), and keep it at that
> temperature for quite a while -- say an hour or more. Lots more (24-48
> hours) if you're wanting to tenderize a tough cut.

True, and the reason to keep the water circulating is so you can bring
the meat up to that temperature as quickly as possible without
bringing the surface of the meat to a higher temperature. It's kind
of like a convection oven. Would you send me a supplies/sources list
and plans? John K. and I want to build one.

Thanks.
>
> Isaac

--Bryan

In article
>,
Bryan > wrote:

> On Nov 11, 11:19*pm, isw > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *"Kent" > wrote:
> > > "isw" > wrote in message
> > > ]...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Kent" > wrote:
> >
> > > >> "isw" > wrote in message
> > > >> ]...
> > > >> > In article om>,
> > > >> > "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
> >
> > > >> >> George wrote:
> >
> > > >> >> >>>>http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
> >
> > > >> >> >>>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
> >
> > > >> >> >>> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler
> > > >> >> >>> (Igloo,
> > > >> >> >>> Coleman, etc.). *One could do wonderful things with those
> > > >> >> >>> inexpensive
> > > >> >> >>> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper
> > > >> >> >>> cuts.
> > > >> >> >>> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. *I
> > > >> >> >>> should
> > > >> >> >>> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial
> > > >> >> >>> sous
> > > >> >> >>> vide
> > > >> >> >>> cooker.
> >
> > > >> >> >> Obviously I'm missing something here. *If you take a cheap,
> > > >> >> >> tough
> > > >> >> >> piece
> > > >> >> >> of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end
> > > >> >> >> up
> > > >> >> >> with
> > > >> >> >> a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
> >
> > > >> >> > You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer
> > > >> >> > time
> > > >> >> > (>
> > > >> >> > 24
> > > >> >> > hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the
> > > >> >> > collagen
> > > >> >> > into
> > > >> >> > gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get
> > > >> >> > the
> > > >> >> > great
> > > >> >> > beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost
> > > >> >> > flavorless
> > > >> >> > like
> > > >> >> > a filet.
> >
> > > >> >> There are plenty of tough cuts which don't *have* the connective
> > > >> >> tissue
> > > >> >> you
> > > >> >> mention. Cooking them for a long period of time just makes them
> > > >> >> dry,
> > > >> >> since
> > > >> >> the proteins contract and drive the water out.
> >
> > > >> > Not if you keep the temperature low enough (and sous-vide does). If
> > > >> > proteins don't contract at 131 F in one minute (as, say, when you
> > > >> > pull
> > > >> > that rare steak from the pan), then they won't contract after 24
> > > >> > hours
> > > >> > at that same temperature -- the denaturing of proteins is
> > > >> > temperature
> > > >> > dependent, but not time dependent. But the collagen (or some of it)
> > > >> > *will* break down. Give it a try.
> >
> > > >> > Isaac
> >
> > > >> We did something like this with eye of round. *There was an article in
> > > >> Cooks
> > > >> Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the
> > > >> meat
> > > >> is
> > > >> not under vacuum and submerged.
> >
> > > > Insofar as home-cooking sous vide is concerned, I don't think the
> > > > "vacuum" part is very important. The main points are to cook in a
> > > > liquid, which conducts heat far better than air, and to isolate the
> > > > product from the cooking liquid so the flavor doesn't get diluted.
> >
> > > > Restaurant sous vide cooking (cook, flash chill, rewarm when an order
> > > > comes in) is a very different thing.
> >
> > > > Isaac
> >
> > > I thought as you that the vacuum part isn't important. I put a piece of
> > > sirloin into a ziplock bag, and sucked out the air. I warmed it very very
> > > slowly to 130F in water. It didn't work. The air spaces between the
> > > plastic
> > > and the meat kept the meat from cooking.
> >
> > Well, that's odd, because that's exactly what I did -- using "ZipLok"
> > freezer bags and the little pump they provide for them. Worked fine.
> >
> > And I've read that *as long as you get rid of air bubbles*, you don't
> > even need the vacuum. I've seen descriptions of that method on line.
> > Basically, you submerge the bag slowly, and let the water push the air
> > up and out.
> >
> > But if your description describes what you actually did: "warmed it very
> > very slowly to 130F in water", that's not sous vide. You need to put the
> > meat in water that's already at 130 F (or whatever), and keep it at that
> > temperature for quite a while -- say an hour or more. Lots more (24-48
> > hours) if you're wanting to tenderize a tough cut.
>
> True, and the reason to keep the water circulating is so you can bring
> the meat up to that temperature as quickly as possible without
> bringing the surface of the meat to a higher temperature. It's kind
> of like a convection oven. Would you send me a supplies/sources list
> and plans? John K. and I want to build one.

I will gladly send you what I have, but I should warn you, it's more of
an "idea starting point" than a finished item. I'm a retired
physicist/engineer, and I know how to do the full-tilt-boogie of product
documentation, but I rarely do that for personal hacks.

Isaac