On 29-Apr-2007, Steve Wertz > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:19:52 -0400, Steve Calvin wrote:
>
> > Steve Wertz wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:09:15 -0400, Steve Calvin wrote:
> >>
> >>> Try this. Make an Italian sandwich out of some italian
> >>> bread, ham, cheese, whatever you like and put it into a
> >>> "marinade". Then make the exact same thing an vacuum seal it
> >>> and see which takes up more of the liquid.
> >>>
> >>> Me thinks it will show what I'm saying.
> >>
> >> That dry bread absorbs more water than wet meat?
> >>
> >> <boggle>
> >>
> >> I think the science trumps your WAG on this. Otherwise
> >> manufacturers wouldn't be spending hundreds of thousands of
> >> dollars on these machines that obviously work.
> >
> > Could be, but I doubt it. Try my suggestion, I think that
> > you'll see the difference.
>
> Meat != Bread. Your argument and example is completely absurd.
>
> > In the mean time, people have
> > bought hoola-hoops, pet rocks, and weather rocks for years.
> > You one of them? ;-)
> >
> > The American consumer is one of the dumbest creatures ever
> > created. (not a shot at you, just consumers in general)
>
> Are you honestly suggesting that every major meat packer owns
> dozens of these huge devices, and it's all just the Gullible Pet
> Rock syndrome?
>
> Or are you just arguing because you're too pig-headed to admit
> your wild-ass-guess was wrong?
>
> -sw

He apparently does not have a vacuum machine of his own. At my
house meat sucks up fluid like a leech when I pull a vacuum on
it while it's immersed in liquid. Meat and vegetables have a lot of
open space in them which is immediately filled with liquid as soon
as the air is removed. The cells do not compress as suggested.
Why would they. There is no pressure left to compress them. Don't
confuse vacuum in a jar or other hard container with vacuum in a
pliable bag where outside air pressure figures in the equation.

--
Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)