The Ultimeat Showdown! Butcher Battle Round 4 and Don't Be Fowl Round 2 posted in OP on 11/08

[pwny]

Just now, jonu62882 said:

From what I've read, I though the sous vide prevents this from occurring by basically dumbing the process down (assuming you cook to at least the minimum time frame).

It does. But if the temperature isn't calibrated correctly, you won't be cooking at the right temperature. You're not checking the temperature of the meat, you're checking the water to verify the sous vide is heating properly. If you set it for 130 for a steak, but the heating temp is actually 5 degrees off, you could end up with rare or medium steaks instead.

[Woz]

Just now, jonu62882 said:

From what I've read, I though the sous vide prevents this from occurring by basically dumbing the process down (assuming you cook to at least the minimum time frame).

Assuming your water heater is set to the right temperature, yes.

Do you know that the heater is set to the right temperature? No? That's why you may want the instant read thermometer. As @pwny said, you don't need it every time, but you probably want it from time to time (and certainly want it the first time).

[Woz]

See, I like the concept of sous vide.

My problem is I'm lazy.

[Dome]

14 minutes ago, pwny said:

You're literally saying you know better than one of the most respected chefs on the planet, who has won the James Beard Award for culinary education based on this very science you're claiming you know better than.

But you totally know your chicken is juicier than chicken you've never had that's scientifically proven to be juicier because you say so. Okay, man. Okay.

I didn’t say that at all. Please show me where I did. You said my chicken is dry. I said it’s not. And that’s been about the extent of the debate.

This new narrative is founded in your imagination.

[ET80]

6 minutes ago, Woz said:

My problem is I'm lazy.

That's my issue. If I wasn't, I would have won a Nobel Prize along with an EGOT by now and I'd dedicate two hours to making chicken.

[Woz]

Just now, ET80 said:

That's my issue. If I wasn't, I would have won a Nobel Prize along with an EGOT by now and I'd dedicate two hours to making chicken.

And yet here we are, moderating a football board, and arguing about meat (you STILL haven't explained why Chuck over Sirloin).

[jonu62882]

24 minutes ago, pwny said:

It does. But if the temperature isn't calibrated correctly, you won't be cooking at the right temperature. You're not checking the temperature of the meat, you're checking the water to verify the sous vide is heating properly. If you set it for 130 for a steak, but the heating temp is actually 5 degrees off, you could end up with rare or medium steaks instead.

Ah okay, I was thinking for purposes to check the temp of the meat.

Im gonna have to give this a whirl.

Edited October 19, 2018 by jonu62882

[pwny]

4 minutes ago, Dome said:

I didn’t say that at all. Please show me where I did. You said my chicken is dry. I said it’s not. And that’s been about the extent of the debate.

This new narrative is founded in your imagination.

Right here:

44 minutes ago, Dome said:

Slamming the table screaming “but look what it says online, your chicken is dry!” Only goes so far when I know it’s incorrect.

You literally said you know that "what it says online" is incorrect when the online source was posted as:

1 hour ago, pwny said:

Everything was pulled from this article. 

which is an article written by J. Kenji Lopez-Alt, who won the James Beard Award for culinary education for the original source of this article.

 

I'm sure you cook chicken wonderfully in the standard methods. I'm sure by those standard methods, you do a wonderful job of retaining moisture as best as possible. I'm sure by those standards, you cook a "moist" chicken. But you can't suspend scientific principles while cooking. No matter how much you try, it is literally impossible to stop fat from liquifying at the temperatures it liquifies. Compared to ways of cooking that aren't impeded by science, you will never have a comparably moist chicken. It's not possible. Period.

[jonu62882]

12 minutes ago, Woz said:

And yet here we are, moderating a football board, and arguing about meat (you STILL haven't explained why Chuck over Sirloin).

And we all know self-respecting Nobel Prize Laureate would choose sirloin over chuck...Pffft.

[Woz]

Just now, jonu62882 said:

Ah okay, I was thinking for purposes to check the temp of the meat.

Keep in mind, you could sous vide something for 24 hours (or more) provided that you maintained the temp of your water bath consistently. It would be a waste of time and energy, but it wouldn't hurt the food (I think ... right @pwny?).

[ET80]

18 minutes ago, Woz said:

And yet here we are, moderating a football board, and arguing about meat (you STILL haven't explained why Chuck over Sirloin).

Toss up, ultimately. Ask me tomorrow and I'd probably pick sirloin - but being a man of integrity, honor and humility, I couldn't simply change my vote. 

[Dome]

6 minutes ago, pwny said:

You literally said you know that "what it says online" is incorrect when the online source was posted as:

Prove my chicken is dry then. That was your original stance when I pointed out you were wrong. My stance was always “my chicken isn’t dry” not “I have the wettest bird you’ve ever seen”

like I said, you are misunderstanding.

6 minutes ago, pwny said:

I’m sure you cook chicken wonderfully in the standard methods. I'm sure by those standard methods, you do a wonderful job of retaining moisture as best as possible. I'm sure by those standards, you cook a "moist" chicken. But you can't suspend scientific principles while cooking. No matter how much you try, it is literally impossible to stop fat from liquifying at the temperatures it liquifies. Compared to ways of cooking that aren't impeded by science, you will never have a comparably moist chicken. It's not possible. Period.

We were compaing the two? Maybe you were. This was never the debate.

You told me my chicken was dry. I said it wasn’t. then you went back to google looking to win an argument we weren’t having lmao

I never compared the two, in fact I didn’t mention or refer to your chicken at all, so I’m not sure how you got this idea that I was comparing the two....

[pwny]

27 minutes ago, Woz said:

Keep in mind, you could sous vide something for 24 hours (or more) provided that you maintained the temp of your water bath consistently. It would be a waste of time and energy, but it wouldn't hurt the food (I think ... right @pwny?).

Proteins break down the longer they're cooked, so it depends. There's always consequences of cooking longer, but they aren't always bad. You shouldn't leave chicken for more than 4 hours or so or the proteins break down in not good ways. 

This is chicken juice left for different lengths of time:

The proteins in the chicken are going to be cooked in similarly not good ways. But even though it's cooked after 1.5 hours, I don't like the texture nearly as much as chicken left for 2 hours.

 

A steak left for a longer time can become mushy and gross. But a nice thick roast can be left in for upwards of 24-48 hours and the breakdown of proteins will actually make a tough roast super tender.

[ET80]

7 minutes ago, jonu62882 said:

And we all know self-respecting Nobel Prize Laureate would choose sirloin over chuck...Pffft.

I have it on very good authority that Dr. John Nash is all about beef chuck.

[Dome]

3 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Toss up, ultimately. Ask me tomorrow and I'd probably pick sirloin - but being a man of integrity, honor and humility, I couldn't simply change my vote. 

What are you making with a round that stacks up against a top sirloin or tri tip? Now I gotta know 

edit: maybe someone else picked round, might not have been you

Edited October 19, 2018 by Dome