> Why would the biochemical processes of
> cooking care what color the meat is?

Color is a biochemical process. Pink is meat without the proteins
denatured. Once there is no more pink, all of the protein are
denatured and the heat energy must find the chemical reaction
with the next highest activation energy. In specific the binding of
connective fibers to make the meat tough. There is an amazing
lack of overlap of the two reactions. While the easier denaturing
process is proceeding very little of th heat energy is consumed
binding connective tissue. Caveat - Thicker steaks have enough
volume that both reactions can offer together, so it is a function
of thickness.

> I agree that well done is an abomination when it comes to steak

You have not found any cook capable of knowing what second
to pull a tender well done steak off of the grill/pan. Check. I
have. I can't do it myself but I have encountered 2-3 cooks who
can do it. I married one of them.

You have not experinced it therefore you do not believe it is
possible. I have experienced therefore I both know that it is
possible and I also know the degree of skill needed. It's not
like you're the first person I've encountered who hasn't dealt
with a top 1% steak-cooker skill person.

> but I cannot see how the colort would be related to the toughness.

Chemistry. Heat of activation. Heat tends to flow to the reaction
that has the lowest heat of activation. The greater the difference
in heat of activation, the greater the ratio that the two reactions
proceed. Denaturing a protein only changes its shape, breaking
the curves of the amino acids and randomizing them into other
curves. The binding of connective tissue must require more
activation enegy.

Try an experiment. When cooking a ton of steaks at the
family reunion next summer, put on 50 at the same time. Pull
them off one every 20 seconds. The first will be rare. The last
will be tough. Find the one with the least pink and the first
one with no pink. The one after that will be the first tough one,
but not the first one with no pink. Then consider just how hard
it would beto do that with only one steak on the grill. It can be
done but the difficulty is why you don't at this time believe it
can. Hitting a hole in one in golf can also be done. That's
also why my version of the perfact steak is cut thin enough
that the risk of toughness is reduced if you can't hit that one
second of perfection.

A perfect well done steak is tender and delicious and an
experience to be relished. Still tender, still juicy, demonstrating
extreme skill in its timing. Every second past that point adds
toughness.

> Color is a biochemical process. Pink is meat without the proteins
> denatured. Once there is no more pink, all of the protein are
> denatured and the heat energy must find the chemical reaction
> with the next highest activation energy.

Ok... but a steak isn't a fluid; heat isn't evenly distributed. While
you're still busy denaturing proteins in the middle, you must be also
binding connective fibers and making the meat tough on the outside, all at
the same time (at least with a steak of any reasonable thickness). (Not
being a food chemist, I'll take you word for it that that's what happens.)

> In specific the binding of
> connective fibers to make the meat tough. There is an amazing
> lack of overlap of the two reactions.

Why is that? This is what I don't get. It's not like losing the last of
the local pink suddenly makes that meat a much more efficient conductor,
passing the rest of the heat along to the middle where it's still needed. :-)

Of course, this is only really of academic interest for me; I like a steak
rare to medium-rare anyway (and not just because it gets tough when
overcooked; it tastes better when more rare also, for me).

> Chemistry. Heat of activation. Heat tends to flow to the reaction
> that has the lowest heat of activation.

Heat tends to flow (in a solid) according to how good a conductor of heat
that solid is. It doesn't depend on whether a low-activation reation is
waiting to the left rather than to the right. :-)


-C

Chris De Young wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> > Color is a biochemical process. Pink is meat without the proteins
> > denatured. Once there is no more pink, all of the protein are
> > denatured and the heat energy must find the chemical reaction
> > with the next highest activation energy.
>
> Ok... but a steak isn't a fluid; heat isn't evenly distributed. While
> you're still busy denaturing proteins in the middle, you must be also
> binding connective fibers and making the meat tough on the outside,
all at
> the same time

Correct. That's why thinly sliced beef like in a Philly Cheese Steak
is
easy to get tender and well done, why a steak the thickness of my
hand can only be pulled off by one cook in a hundred, and why a
roast is out of the question unless you're willing to cook that roast
past the point of tough until it falls off the bone.

> (at least with a steak of any reasonable thickness). (Not
> being a food chemist, I'll take you word for it that that's what
happens.)

The thicker the steak the harder to pull it off. Get a steak as
thick as a filet minion and forget it. Not enough time for the
heat to flow into the middle.

> > There is an amazing lack of overlap of the two reactions.
>
> Why is that? This is what I don't get. It's not like losing the last
of
> the local pink suddenly makes that meat a much more efficient
> conductor, passing the rest of the heat along to the middle where
> it's still needed. :-)

A steak while cooking will conduct enough that a perfectly tender
well done steak is possible so long as you use a steak no thicker
than my hand and you have a cook capable of knowing which
one second period it will start getting tough.

> Of course, this is only really of academic interest for me; I like
> a steak rare to medium-rare anyway (and not just because it
> gets tough when overcooked; it tastes better when more rare
> also, for me).

I like the flavor of a well done steak better when I think it is
possible. As a result I order my steaks medium in any
restaurant I've been to under a dozen times until I know who
the cook on duty is. I am well aware that it is impossible to
the vast majority of cooks including myself.

> > Chemistry. Heat of activation. Heat tends to flow to the reaction
> > that has the lowest heat of activation.
>
> Heat tends to flow (in a solid) according to how good a conductor
> of heat that solid is. It doesn't depend on whether a low-activation
> reation is waiting to the left rather than to the right. :-)

Heat tends to flow from the source of heat to the point of lowest
temperature. To the extent allowed by conductivity it does not
flow in every direction. Any cooking process that is exothermic
will consume heat and tend to draw heat to the point of reaction
to the extent allowed by conduction. This is why it is easy to
cook tender thinly sliced well done beef, very hard to cook a steak,
impossible to do it with a solid chunk.

Maybe that is my problem, I think I have always overcooked steak. I do
appreciate the scientific take on it. thanks!

kitamaria wrote:

> Maybe that is my problem, I think I have always overcooked steak. I do
> appreciate the scientific take on it. thanks!

I never liked beef when I was a kid. My mother used to cook it until it was
grey, tough and flavorless. They were from a generation that was squeamish
about meat that looked like it might not be cooked. Somewhere along the
line I discovered that if it was cooked only until was was pink (at most)
it was much tastier nd had a nicer texture.

Dave Smith wrote:

> I never liked beef when I was a kid. My mother used to cook it
> until it was grey, tough and flavorless.

Heh...did your mother ever cook in the Navy? That's where I really started
to loathe steaks: They'd get cuts from the lowest bidder, take them straight
from the freezer to the griddle, cook them until they were completely grey
inside, and toss them onto your dining tray. But the worst part about it was
the attitude that they were doing you a FAVOR by giving you STEAK! :-)

I've managed to overcome that aversion since getting out of the Navy, but it
took well-nigh ten years.

Bob

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message

> kitamaria wrote:
>
>> Maybe that is my problem, I think I have always overcooked steak. I
>> do appreciate the scientific take on it. thanks!
>
> I never liked beef when I was a kid. My mother used to cook it until
> it was grey, tough and flavorless. They were from a generation that
> was squeamish about meat that looked like it might not be cooked.
> Somewhere along the line I discovered that if it was cooked only
> until was was pink (at most) it was much tastier nd had a nicer
> texture.

Dave, that's me. My dad, regardless of the Wisconsin weather, grilled steak
EVERY Sunday. I loathed it! I would sit at that table for hours absolutely
refusing to eat it. When I got older I learned that if the meat isn't GREY
it can actually be tasty. Now I like my steak, hamburger, prime rib rare as
rare can be. Basically, sear the outside and leave the inside the way it
is. No wonder I didn't like my dad's steak. Took me until about 10 years
ago to figure it out.

kili

Over-cooking is the most common fault, not only for steak, but for every
food product.

They all continue to cook as long as heat is still present. In some cases
you have to pull food before it is finished, allowing it to finish itself.

Dave Smith wrote:

> I never liked beef when I was a kid. My mother used to cook it
> until it was grey, tough and flavorless.

Heh...did your mother ever cook in the Navy? That's where I really started
to loathe steaks: They'd get cuts from the lowest bidder, take them straight
from the freezer to the griddle, cook them until they were completely grey
inside, and toss them onto your dining tray. But the worst part about it was
the attitude that they were doing you a FAVOR by giving you STEAK! :-)

I've managed to overcome that aversion since getting out of the Navy, but it
took well-nigh ten years.

Bob

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message

> kitamaria wrote:
>
>> Maybe that is my problem, I think I have always overcooked steak. I
>> do appreciate the scientific take on it. thanks!
>
> I never liked beef when I was a kid. My mother used to cook it until
> it was grey, tough and flavorless. They were from a generation that
> was squeamish about meat that looked like it might not be cooked.
> Somewhere along the line I discovered that if it was cooked only
> until was was pink (at most) it was much tastier nd had a nicer
> texture.

Dave, that's me. My dad, regardless of the Wisconsin weather, grilled steak
EVERY Sunday. I loathed it! I would sit at that table for hours absolutely
refusing to eat it. When I got older I learned that if the meat isn't GREY
it can actually be tasty. Now I like my steak, hamburger, prime rib rare as
rare can be. Basically, sear the outside and leave the inside the way it
is. No wonder I didn't like my dad's steak. Took me until about 10 years
ago to figure it out.

kili

kitamaria wrote:

> Maybe that is my problem, I think I have always overcooked steak. I do
> appreciate the scientific take on it. thanks!

I never liked beef when I was a kid. My mother used to cook it until it was
grey, tough and flavorless. They were from a generation that was squeamish
about meat that looked like it might not be cooked. Somewhere along the
line I discovered that if it was cooked only until was was pink (at most)
it was much tastier nd had a nicer texture.

> Color is a biochemical process. Pink is meat without the proteins
> denatured. Once there is no more pink, all of the protein are
> denatured and the heat energy must find the chemical reaction
> with the next highest activation energy.

Ok... but a steak isn't a fluid; heat isn't evenly distributed. While
you're still busy denaturing proteins in the middle, you must be also
binding connective fibers and making the meat tough on the outside, all at
the same time (at least with a steak of any reasonable thickness). (Not
being a food chemist, I'll take you word for it that that's what happens.)

> In specific the binding of
> connective fibers to make the meat tough. There is an amazing
> lack of overlap of the two reactions.

Why is that? This is what I don't get. It's not like losing the last of
the local pink suddenly makes that meat a much more efficient conductor,
passing the rest of the heat along to the middle where it's still needed. :-)

Of course, this is only really of academic interest for me; I like a steak
rare to medium-rare anyway (and not just because it gets tough when
overcooked; it tastes better when more rare also, for me).

> Chemistry. Heat of activation. Heat tends to flow to the reaction
> that has the lowest heat of activation.

Heat tends to flow (in a solid) according to how good a conductor of heat
that solid is. It doesn't depend on whether a low-activation reation is
waiting to the left rather than to the right. :-)


-C

Maybe that is my problem, I think I have always overcooked steak. I do
appreciate the scientific take on it. thanks!