|SolRo - 2017-02-04 |
I'd have just pan seared it and bought beer instead of liquid nitrogen
|Simillion - 2017-02-04 |
|Mr. Purple Cat Esq. - 2017-02-04 |
I take all my meals in this fashion
|Bootymarch - 2017-02-04 |
I'd love to have a sous vide setup. I don't see anything wrong with it as long as you're not bloviating on youtube about how it produces the most exquisite steaks imaginable. It's just a precise slow cooker.
The liquid nitrogen is ridiculous though.
Yeah, the constant bloviating makes me skeptical. I've never had anything prepared sous vide, but... can it be that much better?
For my money, the most indulgent steak dinner involves a sunny day, a charcoal grill, some freshly shucked barbecued oysters and a chilled salad.
That's a nice looking t-bone, though. I miss living on a cattle ranch, paying for nice steaks is a bummer.
in theory, getting the tenderness of slow cooking with the taste of not overlooking food should be great.
but I don't feel like waiting 12 hours for a steak.
Two words, sear and broil.
Also I'm not sure if this is the lest appetizing looking steak or the most.
So I assume it produces cheesecake that is more moist? That's interesting. I very rarely eat cheesecake, but despite that, I do really enjoy it. I'm having a hard time imagining how one would sous vide a cheesecake, so I should probably just Google it.
How do you prepare the chicken breast, Gravid? I would imagine that you'd have to finish it in a pan or broiler? I bet it'd make a nice chicken salad, pan finished or not...
Sous Vide really is a lot better for preparing many foods. BUT, it's a lot more work. For many meals, it's worth it, especially if you like your steak rare, or if you like pork almost any way (pork is almost always dry, tough, and stringy any other way I've had it). Stuffed "pocket" pork chops are amazing with Sous Vide!
So, I think it's worth the expense and bother sometimes, but most of the time, I use ordinary methods.
TheyUsedDarkForces: For cheesecake I use 1/2 cup mason jars, fill 'em with batter and sous-vide. Not my idea, but it works brilliantly. No worries about a socggy crust or fiddling with a water bath, or how to present it.
As for chicken, like many of my recipes I just crib off of Kenji Lopez Alt and Serious Eats:
The Food Lab is a seriously great resource.
|glasseye - 2017-02-04 |
I had sous vide chicken about a year ago, it certainly didn't take 12 hours (more like 90 minutes or so?), and it was super awesome.
Chicken should not be in the Sous Vide for long at all! Two hours max?
I've always found baked chicken to be dry, tough, and stringy. I chicken until I got the sous vide. Now I like chicken quite a bit.
The sous vide chicken was moister than any I've ever had. It was great!
|somedongus - 2017-02-05 |
This video is way overkill for a T-Bone, especially considering the cost of LN2 and all that oil he was using. It really looked kinda unsafe as well. Still neat to watch.
I've had 5 pounds of pork butt, cut into rough cubes, seasoned with salt, pepper, cinnamon, cumin, coriander, bay leaves, a quartered orange and 2 cans of pineapple juice, ziplocked and cooking at 150 since noon for the Superbowl tomorrow. It'll be 24 hours in the making, then pull it out, shred it, and fry it up in a cast iron, no additional oil necessary. I've made long cook carnitas in the oven over night before and I much prefer the results from the sous vide method.
That sounds delicious!
Oh, it was! Brought it to the bar for the game and ended up paying no tab because the bartender ate so much of it.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|