"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> Our local paper carried a story about this a couple of years ago. Some
>> food
>> scientist from Cornell did a simple experiment: He cooked a bunch of
>> steaks
>> various ways, and weighed them carefully afterward. The "seal in the
>> juices"
>> method was, in fact, bullshit. More weight was lost with that method due
>> to
>> lost liquid, and the opposite came from cooking over very low heat. But,
>> it
>> doesn't matter.
>
> I would disagree that a test as you described it would accurately measure
> the
> juices that are supposed to be locked in. There is a variety of
> consistency in
> the meat of a seared steak. the outside is a little harder and drier while
> the
> inside is nice anc moist. At least, they are when I do them the way I like
> them,
> raw or almost raw in the middle. Then there is the fat, which tends to
> melt off
> in hot pan.
>
> A proper test would have to break down the various components of the meat
> to
> measure the amount of fat, the amount of water and to test the inner
> part. The
> idea of searing meat to lock in juices, as I understand it. leads to the
> browning of the outside of the meat, making it a little drier and tougher
> texture, but the inside is nice and juicy.
>
>

Seriously, it doesn't matter. I know people who fancy themselves to be
serious cooks. And yet, they buy Jif smooth peanut butter.