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.