Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Doh004
Apr 22, 2007

Mmmmm Donuts...

Ultimate Mango posted:

Good luck with this. Just remember that it takes two days and so you want to start making them two nights before you want to eat them. Not that I know anyone who has done that or anything, just saying (I was so stupid).

This is very true.

I guess I should post my trip report. They came out well, no complaints here. But honestly, the texture difference was cool but it still tasted like a braised short rib. I don't think I need to do them again. :)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

dotster
Aug 28, 2013

Steve Yun posted:

If the kickstarter for the Anova Precision makes another $100K, they're going to give every single unit a stainless steel skirt instead of plastic.

I got this email yesterday, kinda cool, it takes away one of the things people were complaining about. I think I would rather have it cost $10 less retail than switch to SS for the skirt.

dotster
Aug 28, 2013

Doh004 posted:

This is very true.

I guess I should post my trip report. They came out well, no complaints here. But honestly, the texture difference was cool but it still tasted like a braised short rib. I don't think I need to do them again. :)

They are good if you need to feed a bunch of people something reasonably priced and good, they do not turn into something that is so good it puts you off steak.

No Wave
Sep 18, 2005

HA! HA! NICE! WHAT A TOOL!
Nothing will put you off steak, but the beef cheeks will come close.... short ribs have enough fat that a normal braise is better IMO.

dotster
Aug 28, 2013

No Wave posted:

Nothing will put you off steak, but the beef cheeks will come close.... short ribs have enough fat that a normal braise is better IMO.

They are pretty easy to do either way. The convenience of doing a lot of ribs sous vide and being able to get them plated with another protein like salmon quickly for a larger dinner party is nice.

deimos
Nov 30, 2006

Forget it man this bat is whack, it's got poobrain!

dotster posted:

I got this email yesterday, kinda cool, it takes away one of the things people were complaining about. I think I would rather have it cost $10 less retail than switch to SS for the skirt.

Ditto, specially since now they'll ditch the polycarbonate skirt, loving BPA cry babies who don't know how the gently caress this poo poo works.

Doh004
Apr 22, 2007

Mmmmm Donuts...

dotster posted:

They are good if you need to feed a bunch of people something reasonably priced and good, they do not turn into something that is so good it puts you off steak.

Definitely!

I think I need to try some chicken breasts or some fish next.

dotster
Aug 28, 2013

Doh004 posted:

Definitely!

I think I need to try some chicken breasts or some fish next.

Chicken is the most different for me between sous vide and traditional cooking, super tender and juicy. I have started just buying a few whole chickens at a time and deboneing and making a white and dark meat bag seasoned and ready to go and freezing them for easy meals. I have had good luck with nomnompaleo.com's chicken thighs.

Veritek83
Jul 7, 2008

The Irish can't drink. What you always have to remember with the Irish is they get mean. Virtually every Irish I've known gets mean when he drinks.
Just started a 48 hour chuck roast at 55.5 C. Salt & pepper, garlic powder, some soy sauce and Worcestershire and a couple of pats of butter. Hopefully Saturday dinner is a delight.

dotster
Aug 28, 2013

I picked up some beef cheeks on sale today at the grocery, anyone have a simple recipe they like for these? I have seen the moderenist one and dont have time for that right now. I was thinking I would just salt, pepper, maybe some rub and do them for 8-9 hrs at 177F.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

dotster posted:

Chicken is the most different for me between sous vide and traditional cooking, super tender and juicy. I have started just buying a few whole chickens at a time and deboneing and making a white and dark meat bag seasoned and ready to go and freezing them for easy meals. I have had good luck with nomnompaleo.com's chicken thighs.
Cooking sous vide, just like our paleolithic ancestors.

I mean I'm not making GBS threads on the recipe, which looks fine. I just find it adorable that a paleo diet website has a section on sous vide cooking.

dotster
Aug 28, 2013

SubG posted:

Cooking sous vide, just like our paleolithic ancestors.

I mean I'm not making GBS threads on the recipe, which looks fine. I just find it adorable that a paleo diet website has a section on sous vide cooking.

I didn't say she isn't a nut but the recipe is good, I have done it a few times now because after the first time I keep getting requests.

No Wave
Sep 18, 2005

HA! HA! NICE! WHAT A TOOL!

SubG posted:

Cooking sous vide, just like our paleolithic ancestors.

I mean I'm not making GBS threads on the recipe, which looks fine. I just find it adorable that a paleo diet website has a section on sous vide cooking.
I've found that paleo broadly refers to two things:

1.) The understanding that our knowledge of nutrition has historically sucked and is most likely in a position of sucking now in ways we don't know so the least risky thing to do is to eat poo poo that sorta resembles what might have been eaten in the past to reduce unknown unknowns where easily possible
2.) Eating mostly meat and vegetables because the macros are good and avoiding sugar and gluten because it makes you feel bad

This website is most likely under 2.). I don't know if either is the "correct" definition of paleo, but I certainly find 1.) more interesting.

Both frameworks make sense to me, which I guess is why it's always sort of odd to me how GWS often points out how "ridiculous" the diet is when it works out quite well for most people who do it - meaning that we're apparently using some metric other than "results in the real world" to evaluate the goodness or badness of an approach.

As with all activities, some people take it to excess, but even the people who take it to excess are in pretty good shape, and it's nothing compared to the excesses of disgusting poo poo that most of the populace engages in.

Bob_McBob
Mar 24, 2007

No Wave posted:

2.) Eating mostly meat and vegetables because the macros are good and avoiding sugar and gluten because it makes you feel bad

Paleo generally involves avoiding all grains, refined sugar, refined oils, and legumes (beans, peanuts, etc.) as well as a variety of other optional poo poo like dairy and nightshades (tomatoes, potatoes, etc.). It also heavily promotes only grass-fed meats (for the fats and because grains are evil) and oils with particular fatty acid ratios. The entire basis for these restrictions is sweeping assumptions about paleolithic lifestyle and evolution that have very little scientific credibility. That's why it's ridiculous.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

No Wave posted:

Both frameworks make sense to me, which I guess is why it's always sort of odd to me how GWS often points out how "ridiculous" the diet is when it works out quite well for most people who do it - meaning that we're apparently using some metric other than "results in the real world" to evaluate the goodness or badness of an approach.
The owner of the blog conveniently provides a comic (complete with serenely informative self-insert and dumb and so goddamn crazy strawman) explaining their viewpoint, which is that people should eat `real' foods. Instead of things that `wreck our metabolic, digestive, and immune systems'. Like rice.

It's pseudoscientific crap. The fact that there are some people who believe in the pseudoscientific crap somewhat less ardently or less stridently than others doesn't mean that it's not pseudoscientific crap.

Like I said the recipe actually looks fine. I mean if you didn't already know about it you wouldn't even know it was a paleo recipe. Almost as if paleo itself is completely irrelevant to good cooking.

Chemmy
Feb 4, 2001

Are prescription drugs paleo or does that go out the window if someone gets sick?

Phantom Limb
Jun 30, 2005

blargh
Is top sirloin okay to cook for ~2 hours or is it a 24-48 hour cut?

Ultimate Mango
Jan 18, 2005

Phantom Limb posted:

Is top sirloin okay to cook for ~2 hours or is it a 24-48 hour cut?

I have done 2 and it was great.

dotster
Aug 28, 2013

Ultimate Mango posted:

Phantom Limb posted:

Is top sirloin okay to cook for ~2 hours or is it a 24-48 hour cut?
I have done 2 and it was great.

Same I just treated it like a strip and it was great.

No Wave
Sep 18, 2005

HA! HA! NICE! WHAT A TOOL!

SubG posted:

The owner of the blog conveniently provides a comic (complete with serenely informative self-insert and dumb and so goddamn crazy strawman) explaining their viewpoint, which is that people should eat `real' foods. Instead of things that `wreck our metabolic, digestive, and immune systems'. Like rice.

It's pseudoscientific crap. The fact that there are some people who believe in the pseudoscientific crap somewhat less ardently or less stridently than others doesn't mean that it's not pseudoscientific crap.

Like I said the recipe actually looks fine. I mean if you didn't already know about it you wouldn't even know it was a paleo recipe. Almost as if paleo itself is completely irrelevant to good cooking.
If there's a specific contradiction on her blog, sure, fine - but that doesn't make SV on a paleo blog that ridiculous.

Paleo itself is just a heuristic, and eating it generally makes you feel really great almost all the time. You don't need science to verify the fact that you're not sleepy at all during the day, and an approach that recognizes our fundamental inability to be certain of how nutrition works is totally valid when long-term nutritional studies are as flawed and useless as they are.

Anyways, I let Nietzsche determine my diet:

quote:

A diet that consists predominantly of rice leads to the use of opium and narcotics, just as a diet that consists predominantly of potatoes leads to the use of liquor. But it also has subtler effects that include ways of thinking that have narcotic effects. This agrees with the fact that those who promote narcotic ways of thinking and feelings, like some Indian gurus, praise a diet that is entirely vegetarian and would like to impose that as a law upon the masses. In this way they want to create and increase the need that they are in a position to satisfy.
...maybe.

No Wave fucked around with this message at 10:54 on May 31, 2014

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

No Wave posted:

Paleo itself is just a heuristic, and eating it generally makes you feel really great almost all the time. You don't need science to verify the fact that[...].
No, you actually do need science for that. If engaging in a particular dietary ritual makes you feel better, that's just peachy. But that doesn't mean paleo isn't nonsense, any more than the reports of purely subjective positive effects derived from faith healing or feng shui mean that they're not nonsense.

Eating is a very personal experience, and pure aesthetics is a large part of that experience. That's cool. That's one of the things that makes food and cooking interesting. So if anyone wants to claim that they personally prefer to eat the way they speculate cavemen used to eat, fine. I mean I happen to think that's pretty loving goofy, but whatever. Lots of people have eating habits I think are pretty loving goofy. But moving from `I happen to like to eat this way' to `real food blah blah grains destroy your immune system blah blah dietary science is totally made up man' moves it from no-accounting-for-taste territory and deep into completely-loving-barmy land.

This probably isn't the thread to arbitrate this however. There's a pseudoscience thread in SAL that's just full of people who would no doubt love to hear all about it though.

dotster
Aug 28, 2013

Right well, regardless some of her sous vide recipes turn out pretty well so that is the only reason I posted the link. Definitely didn't do it to promote alternative diets in the sous vide thread.

Falcon2001
Oct 10, 2004

Eat your hamburgers, Apollo.
Pillbug
Thinking of doing a chuck roast in the sous vide for a day or two, any specific temp/time or application suggestions?

Veritek83
Jul 7, 2008

The Irish can't drink. What you always have to remember with the Irish is they get mean. Virtually every Irish I've known gets mean when he drinks.

Falcon2001 posted:

Thinking of doing a chuck roast in the sous vide for a day or two, any specific temp/time or application suggestions?



This is 48 hours at 55.5 Celsius. It was also dinner tonight. Just did salt/pepper, garlic powder, a bit of soy sauce and a bit of Worcestershire before hand, then salt and pepper again before searing.

MeKeV
Aug 10, 2010
I bagged some pork loin medallions with a splash of oil and did them at 60deg for very nearly 2 hours. I was going to serve them seared whole with some veg but the other half then tells me they were bought for a stir fry.

I cubed them up and then browned them off. They had a nice enough flavour but they weren't particularly pleasant in texture.

I wish I'd tried a bit before browning to see if they were any different then. But I'd be surprised if they were significantly 'better' before hand.

Wrong time or wrong temp? Or just not a meat cut where sous vide gets the best out of it?

Doom Rooster
Sep 3, 2008

Pillbug
If you cubed them up after cooking them already in the SV, then cooked them long enough to brown the cubes, they will have been pretty thoroughly overcooked.

ShadowCatboy
Jan 22, 2006

by FactsAreUseless

MeKeV posted:

I bagged some pork loin medallions with a splash of oil and did them at 60deg for very nearly 2 hours. I was going to serve them seared whole with some veg but the other half then tells me they were bought for a stir fry.

I cubed them up and then browned them off. They had a nice enough flavour but they weren't particularly pleasant in texture.

I wish I'd tried a bit before browning to see if they were any different then. But I'd be surprised if they were significantly 'better' before hand.

Wrong time or wrong temp? Or just not a meat cut where sous vide gets the best out of it?

The whole point of sous vide cooking is to bring your meat to the perfectly desired temperature for a uniform, carefully controlled level of doneness, with the added benefit of tenderizing tougher cuts without overcooking them. Why in the world would you cook something sous vide then cube it for stir fry?

That'd be like taking two hours to carve an ice swan, then smashing it to pieces and using the cubes to chill your drink. Then wondering why your ice sculpture isn't so visually impressive after you spent all that time on it.

MeKeV
Aug 10, 2010
It all makes perfect sense, I did expect them to over cook, but not that significantly.
Though it was worse than if I'd just straight up over cooked them in the wok.

I'm just going to blame the o/h for changing the meal plan mid cook.

It's my fault, I know.

MeKeV fucked around with this message at 10:32 on Jun 2, 2014

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

MeKeV posted:

Wrong time or wrong temp? Or just not a meat cut where sous vide gets the best out of it?
I do this all the loving time and it's fine. Just use a generous amount of oil in a lava loving hot wok, and just bounce the meat around in there long enough for it to brown, which should be literally just a few seconds, and then reserve, do the veg or whatever the gently caress else, and toss everything together at the end right before plating.

It's actually a great approach, you can get super loving tender nicely rare stir-fry, which is not at all traditional but is nevertheless awesome. There's no reason it has to come out overcooked any more than any other goddamn thing done in the puddle machine and then seared is, which is to say not at all unless you need to work on your technique.

No Wave
Sep 18, 2005

HA! HA! NICE! WHAT A TOOL!
I'm a little confused about how I'm supposed to feel about smoking oil. Everywhere I read says it's extremely bad for you, but it seems like the only way to sear steak super hard - and even if you use a dry pan the meat itself smokes.

The Midniter
Jul 9, 2001

No Wave posted:

I'm a little confused about how I'm supposed to feel about smoking oil. Everywhere I read says it's extremely bad for you, but it seems like the only way to sear steak super hard - and even if you use a dry pan the meat itself smokes.

Meh. Ever eaten anything from a grill? If so, you've signed your own death warrant.

Everything kills you and everyone is going to die. I'd rather go out with a belly full of steak when my time comes.

No Wave
Sep 18, 2005

HA! HA! NICE! WHAT A TOOL!

The Midniter posted:

Meh. Ever eaten anything from a grill? If so, you've signed your own death warrant.

Everything kills you and everyone is going to die. I'd rather go out with a belly full of steak when my time comes.
Yeah I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything - I'm just looking for the rule of thumb otherwise responsible people tend to use.

If you're searing hard - it's okay to smoke, but discard the oil afterwards? (as opposed to searing in clarified butter then cooking spinach in that, for example)

Obviously I've eaten stuff that smoked before, but I always sort of wonder if I'm being more or less reckless than common practice.

CrazyLittle
Sep 11, 2001





Clapping Larry
Use oil with a higher smoke point, and then you won't have to keep the oil smoking as long. The goal is to sear the steak, and using a low-smoke-point oil only means you have to cook it in the pan longer.

You can also deep-fry the meat to achieve the same effect without having to bring the oil to its smoke point.

Searing fast is better than searing hard. If you don't want to use any oil at all, pat down the meat and sear it with a torch.

No Wave
Sep 18, 2005

HA! HA! NICE! WHAT A TOOL!

CrazyLittle posted:

Use oil with a higher smoke point, and then you won't have to keep the oil smoking as long. The goal is to sear the steak, and using a low-smoke-point oil only means you have to cook it in the pan longer.

You can also deep-fry the meat to achieve the same effect without having to bring the oil to its smoke point.
Clarified butter's smoke point is 485F, which is on the high end for oil already.

Also not looking to deep fry. I've used extra clarified butter and kept the oil below smoking on thicker ribeyes sometimes, but I'd rather have a single process instead of having to choose between the two each time.

No Wave fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jun 2, 2014

EvilBeard
Apr 24, 2003

Big Q's House of Pancakes

Fun Shoe
I'm just getting started with sous vide. I got in on the Anova kickstarter, because I was looking to get one and a goon referred me to it. I decided I couldn't wait, so I made a ghetto controller to work with my crock pot from some electric parts I bought on Amazon. I bagged some chicken and gave it a whirl. Doesn't work half bad.

EvilBeard fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jun 3, 2014

Ola
Jul 19, 2004

I've given up blazing hot pans for searing, my feeble ventilator can't deal with the smoke and my small apartment quickly fills up. Sucks when having guests. So instead I sear it in butter on a high-ish but normal temperature. This has the advantage of making it immediately usable for a pan sauce. It does take longer than ideal, but I find the layer of overcooked meat creeps very slowly into the meat and you can save some by flipping it frequently during the sear, Ducasse-style.

When the meat is done but before I'm ready to sear it, I cut a hole in the bag, drain the juices into a pan and put the bag back in the puddle (making sure the hole is out of the water) to keep warm. I then boil the juices to solidify the various bits in it, adding stuff like butter, wine and onions. If there is a lot of floating bits, I'll strain it, then put it back on to reduce further. After the meat is seared, I then deglaze with the already somewhat thickened sauce. It soaks up the fat and brown bits from the pan in addition to thickening up very quickly. One of the best sauces I ever made contained only bag juices, half a glass of port and two tablespoons of butter plus a tiny amount of seasoning.

deimos
Nov 30, 2006

Forget it man this bat is whack, it's got poobrain!
Hrm, when did Ary VacMaster start making SV machines? http://www.webstaurantstore.com/ary-vacmaster-vmasvp104-vacuum-packaging-machine-with-sous-vide-head-unit/120VMASVP104.html


quote:

1500W
:eyepop::eyepop:

deimos fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Jun 4, 2014

The Midniter
Jul 9, 2001

So the Anova Kickstarter just hit its stretch goal for the stainless steel skirt. This is only getting better, and there are still almost two weeks left. Wonder what else they could add...?

Steve Yun
Aug 7, 2003
I'm a parasitic landlord that needs to get a job instead of stealing worker's money. Make sure to remind me when I post.
Soiled Meat
They could add a blow torch so it can sear my food once it's done

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Spatule
Mar 18, 2003
Doing pork spare ribs for father day, any suggestions ?
Last time I did 18h at 70c and it was great but classic (like a braise)
Thinking of 36h at 63....

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply