I did a standing rib roast for Christmas dinner, so this interested me when
it caught my eye. He uses a propane torch to caramelize the surface of the
roast before it goes in the oven.

http://www.thedeliciouslife.com/blow...thomas-keller/

After looking it over, and as much as I respect Thomas Keller and would like
to give The French Laundry a try, I think using a torch on your roast is a
ridiculous idea. It seems like a lot of chefs will overcomplicate things for
no good reason. I also took a look at Alton Brown's method and thought using
an inverted flower pot was just as ridiculous.

The roast I did at Xmas was the best I'd ever made, using nothing more
complicated than a probe thermometer.

I ended up using the Alton Brown method (sans flower pot) to great effect.
After seasoning the roast I simply put it in the oven above a pizza stone
and cooked it at 200° until the internal temp was 120°, then removed it and
rested it until the carryover stabilized, which surprised me that it took 45
minutes and only came up to 130°. I then put it back in at 500° for another
10-12 minutes. It came out with a perfect caramelized crust and a final
temperature of 134° with a perfect medium-rare center.

The only difference I could see vs. the Keller roast is mine had a 1/4" band
of darker meat under the crust to the depth the final heat had penetrated.
Super easy, delicious and no tools required.

Hasta,
Curt Nelson

On Jan 1, 6:26*pm, "Curt Nelson" > wrote:
> I did a standing rib roast for Christmas dinner, so this interested me when
> it caught my eye. He uses a propane torch to caramelize the surface of the
> roast before it goes in the oven.
>
> http://www.thedeliciouslife.com/blow...st-recipe-from...
>
> After looking it over, and as much as I respect Thomas Keller and would like
> to give The French Laundry a try, I think using a torch on your roast is a
> ridiculous idea. It seems like a lot of chefs will overcomplicate things for
> no good reason. I also took a look at Alton Brown's method and thought using
> an inverted flower pot was just as ridiculous.
>
> The roast I did at Xmas was the best I'd ever made, using nothing more
> complicated than a probe thermometer.
>
> I ended up using the Alton Brown method (sans flower pot) to great effect..
> After seasoning the roast I simply put it in the oven above a pizza stone
> and cooked it at 200° until the internal temp was 120°, then removed it and
> rested it until the carryover stabilized, which surprised me that it took 45
> minutes and only came up to 130°. I then put it back in at 500° for another
> 10-12 minutes. It came out with a perfect caramelized crust and a final
> temperature of 134° with a perfect medium-rare center.
>
> The only difference I could see vs. the Keller roast is mine had a 1/4" band
> of darker meat under the crust to the depth the final heat had penetrated..
> Super easy, delicious and no tools required.
>
> Hasta,
> Curt Nelson

That works too!

The thing is to get the heat good and high to caramelize the surface.
I did that once with filets of beef. I laid them on a glowing dull red
camp grill directly on an oak fire. I'd put a filet on and it would go
"Tssssssssssss" and 15 seconds later I'd pluck it up and flip it,
"Tssssssssssssss" for 15 more secs, then nibble! I could nibble down
to raw if I wanted, but I nibbled down to as raw as I'd rather recook,
then I'd put it back and do it again.

Bryan may remember. He and I were at Bay Creek access on the Jack's
Fork in my 1964 VW Type II microbus.

YUM!

John Kuthe...

Curt wrote:

> I did a standing rib roast for Christmas dinner, so this interested me
> when it caught my eye. He uses a propane torch to caramelize the surface
> of the roast before it goes in the oven.
>
> http://www.thedeliciouslife.com/blow...thomas-keller/
>
> After looking it over, and as much as I respect Thomas Keller and would
> like to give The French Laundry a try, I think using a torch on your roast
> is a ridiculous idea. It seems like a lot of chefs will overcomplicate
> things for no good reason. I also took a look at Alton Brown's method and
> thought using an inverted flower pot was just as ridiculous.
>
> The roast I did at Xmas was the best I'd ever made, using nothing more
> complicated than a probe thermometer.
>
> I ended up using the Alton Brown method (sans flower pot) to great effect.
> After seasoning the roast I simply put it in the oven above a pizza stone
> and cooked it at 200° until the internal temp was 120°, then removed it
> and rested it until the carryover stabilized, which surprised me that it
> took 45 minutes and only came up to 130°. I then put it back in at 500°
> for another 10-12 minutes. It came out with a perfect caramelized crust
> and a final temperature of 134° with a perfect medium-rare center.
>
> The only difference I could see vs. the Keller roast is mine had a 1/4"
> band of darker meat under the crust to the depth the final heat had
> penetrated. Super easy, delicious and no tools required.

I also disagree with the Keller method. I think the meat should be roasted
at a low temperature throughout, allowed to rest, and then get torched just
before serving. That way, the effect on the interior meat is minimal, and
the roast is SIZZLING when you bring it to the table.

By the way, I'd like to point out something in your post: "cooked it at 200°
until the internal temp was 120°, then removed it and rested it until the
carryover stabilized, which surprised me that it took 45 minutes and only
came up to 130°."

Just yesterday, Sheldon wrote: "anyone with an instant read thermometer can
prove to themselves that the internal temperature of a roast does not
continue to rise when resting outside of the oven... that's a foodtv
myth..." Are you saying that Sheldon was WRONG???? (And is anybody
surprised?)


Bob

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
| ...........
| By the way, I'd like to point out something in your post: "cooked it at 200°
| until the internal temp was 120°, then removed it and rested it until the
| carryover stabilized, which surprised me that it took 45 minutes and only
| came up to 130°."
|
| Just yesterday, Sheldon wrote: "anyone with an instant read thermometer can
| prove to themselves that the internal temperature of a roast does not
| continue to rise when resting outside of the oven... that's a foodtv
| myth..." Are you saying that Sheldon was WRONG???? (And is anybody
| surprised?)
.............

The Fanny Farmer Cookbook, 1979 revision, Standing Rib Roast, p. 154:

"Remove from the oven when the thermometer registers 5 degrees
lower than the desired temperature, and let the roast sit on a carving
board while [ you make Yorkshire Pudding or gravy. ] The roast will
continue to cook and become easier to carve."

A few years before foodtv, eh? It is just amazing how stupid he can be.

pavane

In article >,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:


> Just yesterday, Sheldon wrote: "anyone with an instant read thermometer can
> prove to themselves that the internal temperature of a roast does not
> continue to rise when resting outside of the oven... that's a foodtv
> myth..." Are you saying that Sheldon was WRONG???? (And is anybody
> surprised?)

Why Bob, I'm surprised! Of course Sheldon proved...that HE DOESN'T OWN
A THERMOMETER!

What will he come up with next?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Curt Nelson wrote:

>
> I ended up using the Alton Brown method (sans flower pot) to great effect.
> After seasoning the roast I simply put it in the oven above a pizza stone
> and cooked it at 200° until the internal temp was 120°, then removed it and
> rested it until the carryover stabilized, which surprised me that it took 45
> minutes and only came up to 130°. I then put it back in at 500° for another
> 10-12 minutes. It came out with a perfect caramelized crust and a final
> temperature of 134° with a perfect medium-rare center.

I'm confused. I always put the roast into a hot oven then after a little
while reduced the temperature and finished cooking it in a slow oven.

Is there a big difference doing it one way or the other?
---
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

Curt Nelson wrote:

> I did a standing rib roast for Christmas dinner, so this interested me when
> it caught my eye. He uses a propane torch to caramelize the surface of the
> roast before it goes in the oven.

There's absolutely no reason to do this. It goes along with his
advocacy of sous vide cooking.

It only proves one thing: Writers require new things to write about.

Yet another hook that doesn't need biting.

--
Reg

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:39:03 -0800, RegForte > wrote:

>Curt Nelson wrote:
>
>> I did a standing rib roast for Christmas dinner, so this interested me when
>> it caught my eye. He uses a propane torch to caramelize the surface of the
>> roast before it goes in the oven.
>
>There's absolutely no reason to do this. It goes along with his
>advocacy of sous vide cooking.
>
>It only proves one thing: Writers require new things to write about.
>
>Yet another hook that doesn't need biting.

Nodding.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Dan wrote:

>> Just yesterday, Sheldon wrote: "anyone with an instant read thermometer
>> can prove to themselves that the internal temperature of a roast does not
>> continue to rise when resting outside of the oven... that's a foodtv
>> myth..." Are you saying that Sheldon was WRONG???? (And is anybody
>> surprised?)
>
> Why Bob, I'm surprised! Of course Sheldon proved...that HE DOESN'T OWN
> A THERMOMETER!
>
> What will he come up with next?

Maybe Sheldon *does* have a thermometer, but couldn't figure out where or
how to stick it in.

Bob

RegForte wrote:

>> He uses a propane torch to caramelize the surface of the roast before it
>> goes in the oven.
>
> There's absolutely no reason to do this.

....other than the fact that the well-browned exterior of the meat TASTES
GOOD, you mean? Or were you unaware of that fact?

Bob

Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> RegForte wrote:
>
>
>>>He uses a propane torch to caramelize the surface of the roast before it
>>>goes in the oven.
>>
>>There's absolutely no reason to do this.
>
>
> ...other than the fact that the well-browned exterior of the meat TASTES
> GOOD, you mean? Or were you unaware of that fact?


If you require a blow torch to achieve this you have
my sympathies.

Your oven is quite capable of making this happen.
Really.

--
Reg

RegForte wrote:

>>>> He uses a propane torch to caramelize the surface of the roast before
>>>> it goes in the oven.
>>>
>>>There's absolutely no reason to do this.
>>
>> ...other than the fact that the well-browned exterior of the meat TASTES
>> GOOD, you mean? Or were you unaware of that fact?
>
> If you require a blow torch to achieve this you have
> my sympathies.
>
> Your oven is quite capable of making this happen.
> Really.

The oven is not capable of searing the outside without also creating a
too-large "grey" zone of meat which is overcooked for my tastes. There's
always going to be *some* grey zone, but searing with the blowtorch
minimizes it.

Maybe I just have higher standards than you.

Bob

"Curt Nelson" > wrote in message
...
>I did a standing rib roast for Christmas dinner, so this interested me when
>it caught my eye. He uses a propane torch to caramelize the surface of the
>roast before it goes in the oven.
>
> http://www.thedeliciouslife.com/blow...thomas-keller/
>
> After looking it over, and as much as I respect Thomas Keller and would
> like to give The French Laundry a try, I think using a torch on your roast
> is a ridiculous idea. It seems like a lot of chefs will overcomplicate
> things for no good reason. I also took a look at Alton Brown's method and
> thought using an inverted flower pot was just as ridiculous.
>
> The roast I did at Xmas was the best I'd ever made, using nothing more
> complicated than a probe thermometer.
>
> I ended up using the Alton Brown method (sans flower pot) to great effect.
> After seasoning the roast I simply put it in the oven above a pizza stone
> and cooked it at 200° until the internal temp was 120°, then removed it
> and rested it until the carryover stabilized, which surprised me that it
> took 45 minutes and only came up to 130°. I then put it back in at 500°
> for another 10-12 minutes. It came out with a perfect caramelized crust
> and a final temperature of 134° with a perfect medium-rare center.
>
> The only difference I could see vs. the Keller roast is mine had a 1/4"
> band of darker meat under the crust to the depth the final heat had
> penetrated. Super easy, delicious and no tools required.


This is so for show. I have cooked rib roasts for 30 years and they have
never needed any kind of carmelization like you'd get from a torch. Mine
come out perfect with a crisp crust. All I do is pack the meat with kosher
salt and fresh ground black pepper. 30 minutes at 500 then 15 minutes per
pound at 325. Pull out 15 degrees before target, for me that's 120F. Let
sit 15-20 minutes. Perfect every time.

Paul

Paul wrote:

> This is so for show. I have cooked rib roasts for 30 years and they have
> never needed any kind of carmelization like you'd get from a torch. Mine
> come out perfect with a crisp crust. All I do is pack the meat with
> kosher salt and fresh ground black pepper. 30 minutes at 500 then 15
> minutes per pound at 325. Pull out 15 degrees before target, for me
> that's 120F. Let sit 15-20 minutes. Perfect every time.

Between the outside of the meat and the point where the meat is pink, how
many inches of grey overcooked meat are there in one of your "perfect" rib
roasts?

Bob

"Paul M. Cook" ha scritto nel messaggio
> "Curt Nelson" > wrote in message
>>I did a standing rib roast for Christmas dinner, so this interested me
>>when >>it caught my eye. He uses a propane torch to caramelize the surface
>>of the roast before it goes in the oven.

>> After looking it over, and as much as I respect Thomas Keller and would
>> like to give The French Laundry a try, I think using a torch on your
>> roast >> is a ridiculous idea.
>
> This is so for show. I have cooked rib roasts for 30 years and they have
> > never needed any kind of carmelization like you'd get from a torch.
> Mine come out perfect with a crisp crust.

Perfect for you, too cooked for me. No one has tried this method before
saying it stinks. That's just arrogant. I like rare wall to wall, none of
it "done". I expect dark pink until the very center which should be blue.
I am so dedicated to this that I have done without caramelization to have
it. Keller has offered a way to get that crust. Bravo.

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
>> This is so for show. I have cooked rib roasts for 30 years and they
>> have never needed any kind of carmelization like you'd get from a
>> torch. Mine come out perfect with a crisp crust. All I do is pack
>> the meat with kosher salt and fresh ground black pepper. 30 minutes
>> at 500 then 15 minutes per pound at 325. Pull out 15 degrees before
>> target, for me that's 120F. Let sit 15-20 minutes. Perfect every
>> time.
>
> Between the outside of the meat and the point where the meat is pink,
> how many inches of grey overcooked meat are there in one of your
> "perfect" rib roasts?
>
> Bob

Comes down to personal taste. I do mine the same way and we like that ring,
at close to 1/2". The muscle also has a ring of fat in there and the grey
never passes it. While I don't want my entire roast that color, the
contrasting flavors are a delight to us. Doubt I'll ever try the torch.

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
> Dan wrote:
>
>>> Just yesterday, Sheldon wrote: "anyone with an instant read thermometer
>>> can prove to themselves that the internal temperature of a roast does
>>> not continue to rise when resting outside of the oven... that's a foodtv
>>> myth..." Are you saying that Sheldon was WRONG???? (And is anybody
>>> surprised?)
>>
>> Why Bob, I'm surprised! Of course Sheldon proved...that HE DOESN'T OWN
>> A THERMOMETER!
>>
>> What will he come up with next?
>
> Maybe Sheldon *does* have a thermometer, but couldn't figure out where or
> how to stick it in.
>
> Bob

It could NOT be stuck up there. That's where he pulls all of his
"information" from, and the thermometer would get in the way.

On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 01:37:13 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>Paul wrote:
>
>> This is so for show. I have cooked rib roasts for 30 years and they have
>> never needed any kind of carmelization like you'd get from a torch. Mine
>> come out perfect with a crisp crust. All I do is pack the meat with
>> kosher salt and fresh ground black pepper. 30 minutes at 500 then 15
>> minutes per pound at 325. Pull out 15 degrees before target, for me
>> that's 120F. Let sit 15-20 minutes. Perfect every time.
>
>Between the outside of the meat and the point where the meat is pink, how
>many inches of grey overcooked meat are there in one of your "perfect" rib
>roasts?
>
I think a roast that was perfectly rare to the exterior would weird
out some of my guests. I can deal with less than half an inch of
"cooked" meat and some of my guests welcome it.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 07:43:25 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>Comes down to personal taste. I do mine the same way and we like that ring,
>at close to 1/2". The muscle also has a ring of fat in there and the grey
>never passes it. While I don't want my entire roast that color, the
>contrasting flavors are a delight to us. Doubt I'll ever try the torch.
>
I guess that means you won't ever sous vide your roast. Darn.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 13:43:02 +0100, "Giusi" > wrote:

>
>"Paul M. Cook" ha scritto nel messaggio
>> "Curt Nelson" > wrote in message
>>>I did a standing rib roast for Christmas dinner, so this interested me
>>>when >>it caught my eye. He uses a propane torch to caramelize the surface
>>>of the roast before it goes in the oven.
>
>>> After looking it over, and as much as I respect Thomas Keller and would
>>> like to give The French Laundry a try, I think using a torch on your
>>> roast >> is a ridiculous idea.
>>
>> This is so for show. I have cooked rib roasts for 30 years and they have
>> > never needed any kind of carmelization like you'd get from a torch.
>> Mine come out perfect with a crisp crust.
>
>Perfect for you, too cooked for me. No one has tried this method before
>saying it stinks. That's just arrogant. I like rare wall to wall, none of
>it "done". I expect dark pink until the very center which should be blue.
>I am so dedicated to this that I have done without caramelization to have
>it.
>


Meat does NOT caramelize.... do you season your meat with sugar?
Appyling a torch to meat is only for theatrical effect, same as
flambeing a dish, makes no improvement whatsoever and in fact can and
usually does degrade the dish... these circus shananigans are strictly
to impress the pinheads who failed grade school general science, the
same UNeducated baboon ass faced imbeciles who think that after food
(or anything) it removed from the source of heat its temperature will
continue to rise... well duh, a perpetual motion machine, energy
created from nothing... the energy crisis is solved... who needs any
stinkin' towelheads. The only temperature rise will be the
temperature of the room in which the hotter meat is giving up its
energy. Food continues to cook for a short while after removal from
heat but cooked at a progressively LOWER temperature (same way as
pasta left in it's cooking water continues to cook even though the pot
is removed from heat), its temperature canNOT rise, NOT on this
planet.

"brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
|
| Meat does NOT caramelize.... do you season your meat with sugar?
| Appyling a torch to meat is only for theatrical effect, same as
| flambeing a dish, makes no improvement whatsoever and in fact can and
| usually does degrade the dish... these circus shananigans are strictly
| to impress the pinheads who failed grade school general science, the
| same UNeducated baboon ass faced imbeciles who think that after food
| (or anything) it removed from the source of heat its temperature will
| continue to rise... well duh, a perpetual motion machine, energy
| created from nothing... the energy crisis is solved... who needs any
| stinkin' towelheads. The only temperature rise will be the
| temperature of the room in which the hotter meat is giving up its
| energy. Food continues to cook for a short while after removal from
| heat but cooked at a progressively LOWER temperature (same way as
| pasta left in it's cooking water continues to cook even though the pot
| is removed from heat), its temperature canNOT rise, NOT on this
| planet.
.........

http://www.landfood.ubc.ca/courses/f...brown_prin.htm

"Maillard reaction is a non-enzymatic browning reaction, caused by the

condensation of an amino group and a reducing compound, resulting

complex changes in biological and food system. This reaction was

described for the first time by Louis Maillard in 1912. Maillard reaction

occurs when virtually all foods are heated, and also occurs during

storage. Most of the effect of Maillard reaction, including the caramel

aromas and golden brown colors, are desirable. Nevertheless, some

of the effect of Maillard reaction, including foods darkness and off-flavor

development, are undesirable."



You're welcome, Sheldumb.



pavane

brooklyn1 wrote:

> Food continues to cook for a short while after removal from
> heat but cooked at a progressively LOWER temperature (same way as
> pasta left in it's cooking water continues to cook even though the pot
> is removed from heat), its temperature canNOT rise, NOT on this
> planet.

Correct, but. . . .
The heat energy does re-distribute. The center of the roast will go up as
much as 15 degrees in the center, but the outer portion is reducing as the
heat energy moves both to the cooler center and the cooler ambient air.
I've nver measured, but the outer portion may be 160 and lower down
considerably as soon as you take the roast fromt he oven.

The term "continue to cook" is a bit of a misnomer. The amount of "cooking"
will vary depending on the particular food, the heat it was initial exposed
to, be it a pan or an oven. Just as the past will change as it sits in hot
water. Given enough time, it will get soft even in cold water.

In article >,
"Giusi" > wrote:
>
> Perfect for you, too cooked for me. No one has tried this method before
> saying it stinks. That's just arrogant. I like rare wall to wall, none of
> it "done". I expect dark pink until the very center which should be blue.
> I am so dedicated to this that I have done without caramelization to have
> it. Keller has offered a way to get that crust. Bravo.

We did it.

The roast is pink from edge to edge with a nice carmelized crust. It is
very nearly our usual method (from Cook Illustrated years ago) with the
low temperature cooking to avoid a grey ring of meat. In our usual
method we simply sear the roast quickly on the stove instead of using
the blow torch. Either method works quite well and is very easy.

We already had the torch as it's great for creme brulee and other
carmelized desserts and more economical then those little hand held
gadgets.

marcella

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:39:03 -0800, RegForte wrote:

> Curt Nelson wrote:
>
>> I did a standing rib roast for Christmas dinner, so this interested me when
>> it caught my eye. He uses a propane torch to caramelize the surface of the
>> roast before it goes in the oven.
>
> There's absolutely no reason to do this. It goes along with his
> advocacy of sous vide cooking.
>
> It only proves one thing: Writers require new things to write about.
>
> Yet another hook that doesn't need biting.

i think you are right to a certain extent. on the other hand, people like
keller have more of an opportunity to test one method against another than
most home cooks.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 23:20:33 -0800, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> RegForte wrote:
>
>>>>> He uses a propane torch to caramelize the surface of the roast before
>>>>> it goes in the oven.
>>>>
>>>>There's absolutely no reason to do this.
>>>
>>> ...other than the fact that the well-browned exterior of the meat TASTES
>>> GOOD, you mean? Or were you unaware of that fact?
>>
>> If you require a blow torch to achieve this you have
>> my sympathies.
>>
>> Your oven is quite capable of making this happen.
>> Really.
>
> The oven is not capable of searing the outside without also creating a
> too-large "grey" zone of meat which is overcooked for my tastes. There's
> always going to be *some* grey zone, but searing with the blowtorch
> minimizes it.
>
> Maybe I just have higher standards than you.
>
> Bob

if keller has come up with a technique for home cooks to achieve results
similar to a commercial oven, more power to him.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 10:50:11 -0500, brooklyn1 wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 13:43:02 +0100, "Giusi" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul M. Cook" ha scritto nel messaggio
>>> "Curt Nelson" > wrote in message
>>>>I did a standing rib roast for Christmas dinner, so this interested me
>>>>when >>it caught my eye. He uses a propane torch to caramelize the surface
>>>>of the roast before it goes in the oven.
>>
>>>> After looking it over, and as much as I respect Thomas Keller and would
>>>> like to give The French Laundry a try, I think using a torch on your
>>>> roast >> is a ridiculous idea.
>>>
>>> This is so for show. I have cooked rib roasts for 30 years and they have
>>> > never needed any kind of carmelization like you'd get from a torch.
>>> Mine come out perfect with a crisp crust.
>>
>>Perfect for you, too cooked for me. No one has tried this method before
>>saying it stinks. That's just arrogant. I like rare wall to wall, none of
>>it "done". I expect dark pink until the very center which should be blue.
>>I am so dedicated to this that I have done without caramelization to have
>>it.
>>
>
> Meat does NOT caramelize.... do you season your meat with sugar?
> Appyling a torch to meat is only for theatrical effect, same as
> flambeing a dish, makes no improvement whatsoever and in fact can and
> usually does degrade the dish... these circus shananigans are strictly
> to impress the pinheads who failed grade school general science, the
> same UNeducated baboon ass faced imbeciles who think that after food
> (or anything) it removed from the source of heat its temperature will
> continue to rise...

pinheads like *every single writer* on the subject in the last, what, 200
years? free clue: the *internal* temperature continues to rise.

> well duh, a perpetual motion machine, energy
> created from nothing... the energy crisis is solved... who needs any
> stinkin' towelheads.

no cooking post is complete without a pinch of racism.

>The only temperature rise will be the
> temperature of the room in which the hotter meat is giving up its
> energy. Food continues to cook for a short while after removal from
> heat but cooked at a progressively LOWER temperature (same way as
> pasta left in it's cooking water continues to cook even though the pot
> is removed from heat), its temperature canNOT rise, NOT on this
> planet.

most be tough being a lonely genius, huh, sheldon?

blake

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>
>>Food continues to cook for a short while after removal from
>>heat but cooked at a progressively LOWER temperature (same way as
>>pasta left in it's cooking water continues to cook even though the pot
>>is removed from heat), its temperature canNOT rise, NOT on this
>>planet.
>
>
> Correct, but. . . .
> The heat energy does re-distribute. The center of the roast will go up as
> much as 15 degrees in the center, but the outer portion is reducing as the
> heat energy moves both to the cooler center and the cooler ambient air.
> I've nver measured, but the outer portion may be 160 and lower down
> considerably as soon as you take the roast fromt he oven.
>
> The term "continue to cook" is a bit of a misnomer. The amount of "cooking"
> will vary depending on the particular food, the heat it was initial exposed
> to, be it a pan or an oven. Just as the past will change as it sits in hot
> water. Given enough time, it will get soft even in cold water.
>
>

Exactly. I think the key point is that the center portion
does indeed continue to cook. So, I don't judge that terminology
to be particularly inaccurate.

--
Reg

Giusi wrote:

> Perfect for you, too cooked for me. No one has tried this method before
> saying it stinks. That's just arrogant. I like rare wall to wall, none of
> it "done". I expect dark pink until the very center which should be blue.
> I am so dedicated to this that I have done without caramelization to have
> it. Keller has offered a way to get that crust. Bravo.
>
>

I haven't heard anyone say it stinks. If I were to summarize, I'd
say the attitude is that you don't need a blowtorch to do something
your oven is 100% capable of doing, given a cook with basic skills.

What's good about a new, arbitrary "special equipment" requirement?
Not much. This is not progress.

--
Reg

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> Food continues to cook for a short while after removal from
>> heat but cooked at a progressively LOWER temperature (same way as
>> pasta left in it's cooking water continues to cook even though the pot
>> is removed from heat), its temperature canNOT rise, NOT on this
>> planet.
>
> Correct, but. . . .
> The heat energy does re-distribute. The center of the roast will go up
> as much as 15 degrees in the center, but the outer portion is reducing as
> the heat energy moves both to the cooler center and the cooler ambient
> air. I've nver measured, but the outer portion may be 160 and lower down
> considerably as soon as you take the roast fromt he oven.
>
> The term "continue to cook" is a bit of a misnomer. The amount of
> "cooking" will vary depending on the particular food, the heat it was
> initial exposed to, be it a pan or an oven. Just as the past will change
> as it sits in hot water. Given enough time, it will get soft even in cold
> water.


Don't forget those big bones are heat conductors. They'll continue
releasing their heat after being taken from the oven. I leave the
thermometer in so as not to let the juices run out during resting and the
temperature does go up 10-15 degrees during that time.

Paul

RegForte wrote:
>
> Curt Nelson wrote:
>
> > I did a standing rib roast for Christmas dinner, so this interested me when
> > it caught my eye. He uses a propane torch to caramelize the surface of the
> > roast before it goes in the oven.
>
> There's absolutely no reason to do this. It goes along with his
> advocacy of sous vide cooking.
>
> It only proves one thing: Writers require new things to write about.
>
> Yet another hook that doesn't need biting.

Care to predict the next big thing in cooking?
Maybe we'll be pounding roasts with baseball bats
before deep frying them.

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
> The oven is not capable of searing the outside without also creating a
> too-large "grey" zone of meat which is overcooked for my tastes. There's
> always going to be *some* grey zone, but searing with the blowtorch
> minimizes it.

If you froze it first, wouldn't that minimize
the gray zone?

Ah, my book is starting to come together!
You freeze the roast first, then beat on
it with a baseball bat, then roast in a foil-lined
oven at its highest temperature setting.

Hmmmm . . . need a catchy French name for it.

Mark Thorson wrote:

> Care to predict the next big thing in cooking?
> Maybe we'll be pounding roasts with baseball bats
> before deep frying them.

My grandmother used to beat the rump roast with a rolling pin before making
it into the most tender and delicious pot roast.

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>>
>> The oven is not capable of searing the outside without also creating
>> a too-large "grey" zone of meat which is overcooked for my tastes.
>> There's always going to be *some* grey zone, but searing with the
>> blowtorch minimizes it.
>
> If you froze it first, wouldn't that minimize
> the gray zone?

Bringing it to room temperature first will. Frozen is a bitch to cook
right.

In article >,
"Curt Nelson" > wrote:

> I ended up using the Alton Brown method (sans flower pot) to great effect.
> After seasoning the roast I simply put it in the oven above a pizza stone
> and cooked it at 200° until the internal temp was 120°,

I'm really curious to know how you timie for cutting and serving. If
you want to slice and serve at 6:30, how do you calculate the time so
it's done at 6:00-6:15?

I see charts for roasting at 325, even a chart that includes a hot start
for 15 minutes and a 325 finish (recipetips.com; that's how I did mine),
but have never seen a timing chart for roasting at 200 degrees. Can't
say I've looked for one, though.

Thanks.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller 12/28/2009

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> > Care to predict the next big thing in cooking?
> > Maybe we'll be pounding roasts with baseball bats
> > before deep frying them.
>
> My grandmother used to beat the rump roast with a rolling pin before making
> it into the most tender and delicious pot roast.

I haven't written the book yet, and already the
endorsements are rolling in! I better start
planning the sequel!

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
news
> Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>
>>> This is so for show. I have cooked rib roasts for 30 years and they
>>> have never needed any kind of carmelization like you'd get from a
>>> torch. Mine come out perfect with a crisp crust. All I do is pack
>>> the meat with kosher salt and fresh ground black pepper. 30 minutes
>>> at 500 then 15 minutes per pound at 325. Pull out 15 degrees before
>>> target, for me that's 120F. Let sit 15-20 minutes. Perfect every
>>> time.
>>
>> Between the outside of the meat and the point where the meat is pink,
>> how many inches of grey overcooked meat are there in one of your
>> "perfect" rib roasts?
>>
>> Bob
>
> Comes down to personal taste. I do mine the same way and we like that
> ring, at close to 1/2". The muscle also has a ring of fat in there and
> the grey never passes it. While I don't want my entire roast that color,
> the contrasting flavors are a delight to us. Doubt I'll ever try the
> torch.

I like the technique I use because it cooks the fat enough for me to eat it
and gives a lovely crisp crust. Cooked low and slow gives far more rare
meat throughout, which I personally like, but the fat is disgusting. I get
about 3/4 inch of "gray overcooked meat." I can cope with that. Also, when
cooking for company, my technique gives a choice of very rare center cuts to
more well done outer cuts. Some people like their meat cooked well so I try
to accommodate them. I almost never cook a roast just for myself.

Paul

On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 11:16:22 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> Food continues to cook for a short while after removal from
>> heat but cooked at a progressively LOWER temperature (same way as
>> pasta left in it's cooking water continues to cook even though the pot
>> is removed from heat), its temperature canNOT rise, NOT on this
>> planet.
>
>Correct, but. . . .
>The heat energy does re-distribute. The center of the roast will go up as
>much as 15 degrees in the center, but the outer portion is reducing as the
>heat energy moves both to the cooler center and the cooler ambient air.
>I've nver measured, but

I think you should actually measure. I have, many times, with beef
roasts and pork roasts... because having a degree of scientific
training I know something about what heat is and how it behaves. Heat
energy *always* migrates from hotter to colder. Very little heat
energy will migrate inwards, only a little conduction, so small to be
meaningless, but the majority will migrate outward into the cooler
temperature of the room. If you truly think about it you will realize
that there isn't much heat stored inside a hunk of meat during
roasting, especialy when still dead rare, a very little way past the
surface the temperature will at best be as tepid as breast milk, their
isn't much heat to migrate inward... you do know that mammal flesh is
like 75% water. The only reason an oven cooks at all is because the
door is closed, or most heat produced will warm the room... *only* the
very outer portion of the meat will eventually cook some IF the
surface of the meat is cooler than the room, as soon as it warms past
room temperature all the heat in the oven will migrate into the room
except for some very small amount from convection and radiation, which
won't be more than miniscule with the oven door open. I tested this
concept that the internal portion of a roast will rise in temperature
while resting because when I first began hearing people make the claim
I knew that it flew in the face of all scientific fact... they meant
to say that the meat will continue to cook a bit more while resting
but they mispeak when they say the temperature rises, it does not, it
cannot. A cup of hot coffee won't rise in temperature in your cup,
why would meat, meat is mostly water too. On this planet matter does
not rise in temperature unless a greater heat than that of the matter
is applied or there is some chemical reaction, like the packets
outdoors people place in their mittens. Try it, place your instant
read thermometer probe so that it's into the center same as your
oven meat thermometer (they may not agree exactly because they are in
different spots and may not agree anyway because they never did, but
you'll get a faster reaction with the instant read), you'll see that
the temperature indicated will be of rare meat as is indicated on your
oven meat thermometer and won't rise even one degree... it'll sit
there a few minutes and then begin to fall... don't guess, try it.

On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 09:35:21 -0800, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>
>"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>> brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>>> Food continues to cook for a short while after removal from
>>> heat but cooked at a progressively LOWER temperature (same way as
>>> pasta left in it's cooking water continues to cook even though the pot
>>> is removed from heat), its temperature canNOT rise, NOT on this
>>> planet.
>>
>> Correct, but. . . .
>> The heat energy does re-distribute. The center of the roast will go up
>> as much as 15 degrees in the center, but the outer portion is reducing as
>> the heat energy moves both to the cooler center and the cooler ambient
>> air. I've nver measured, but the outer portion may be 160 and lower down
>> considerably as soon as you take the roast fromt he oven.
>>
>> The term "continue to cook" is a bit of a misnomer. The amount of
>> "cooking" will vary depending on the particular food, the heat it was
>> initial exposed to, be it a pan or an oven. Just as the past will change
>> as it sits in hot water. Given enough time, it will get soft even in cold
>> water.
>
>
>Don't forget those big bones are heat conductors. They'll continue
>releasing their heat after being taken from the oven.

Bone is a lousy conductor, it's a good insulater. And some large
dense bones are good for heat storage like bricks, but rib bones are
exterior and are pretty porous so don't store or transmit heat.

>I leave the
>thermometer in so as not to let the juices run out during resting and the
>temperature does go up 10-15 degrees during that time.
>
>Paul

You lie like a rug.
>

brooklyn1 wrote:

> I think you should actually measure. I have, many times, with beef
> roasts and pork roasts... because having a degree of scientific
> training I know something about what heat is and how it behaves. Heat
> energy *always* migrates from hotter to colder.

Absolutely, one of the laws of physics that we cannot change.

> Try it, place your instant
> read thermometer probe so that it's into the center same as your
> oven meat thermometer (they may not agree exactly because they are in
> different spots and may not agree anyway because they never did, but
> you'll get a faster reaction with the instant read), you'll see that
> the temperature indicated will be of rare meat as is indicated on your
> oven meat thermometer and won't rise even one degree... it'll sit
> there a few minutes and then begin to fall... don't guess, try it.

I use a probe type thermometer with a digital readout. Polder and Polder
clones. Last week I made a beef roast. I tok it fromt he 425 degeee oven
when the temperature hit 120 degrees and set the pan, rack, and roast on the
counter. By the time I was ready to cut and serve the internal temperature
reached 135 degrees.

Juding from the doneness of the outer ring of meat, that portion probably
hit 160. The temperature of that portion would have started to decline as
soon as the meat was out of the oven, but some of that energy continued to
move internally.

What I have noticed, the temperature climb on the inside is related to the
temperature of the oven during the inital cooking time. At 425, it went up
15 degrees, but at 325, it only goes up maybe 10 degrees. That was what we
got on the Christmas day roast done at our friend's house. That is in
relation to the heat energy stored in the outer portion.

"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Curt Nelson" > wrote:
>
>> I ended up using the Alton Brown method (sans flower pot) to great
>> effect.
>> After seasoning the roast I simply put it in the oven above a pizza stone
>> and cooked it at 200° until the internal temp was 120°,
>
> I'm really curious to know how you timie for cutting and serving. If
> you want to slice and serve at 6:30, how do you calculate the time so
> it's done at 6:00-6:15?
>
> I see charts for roasting at 325, even a chart that includes a hot start
> for 15 minutes and a 325 finish (recipetips.com; that's how I did mine),
> but have never seen a timing chart for roasting at 200 degrees. Can't
> say I've looked for one, though.
>
> Thanks.


Initially I took a wild-ass guess and put it in at noon for a 5 pm Christmas
dinner. Took it out for the fridge at 10 am and let it sit for a couple
hours so the center wasn't totally stone cold.

Once I put it in, I noted the temperature at 30 minute intervals and it
eventually stabilized at a 12° rise per hour, which meant it would be ready
to come out at 4. Assuming a 30 minute rest and 12 more minutes in the oven
at 500° and a little time to carve and serve, it worked out to about 5
o'clock. I missed it by 15 minutes because the internal temperature didn't
stabilize for 45 minutes.

Not too bad for an amateur. ;-)

Hasta,
Curt Nelson