On the same subject, I see a lot of outside grills now offer an infrared searing burner that’s supposed to have wicked heat output. Do they work on steak as well as they want you to believe?
Depending on how you define your medium rare (mine is warm center, plenty of red), I’d pull it at 125-130 if doing the standard sear-first then finish in oven method. The steak temp will rise about 5 degrees or so off the heat.
If you do the reverse sear method, salt them and let them rest for an hour. Put them in a 250-275 oven until they reach 90-95F. Heat a cast iron over high heat (some say medium high, I go full blast) until hot (I wait until it barely starts to smoke). Sear for 2 minutes per side. The sear will take the meat the rest of the way up to medium rare.
Depends on the thickness. A 2" steak (imo) should be brought up to temp in a low oven (225ish) or it could be sous vide, and then seared off in a heavy pan. A 3/4" to 1" thick I do in the pan only.
Like all the other steak-loving carnivores on this thread I too have read and watched everything about cooking steaks. And recently I read about a chef who does the pan method and turns the steak repeatedly. Maybe 15 to 20 turns. Cooking each side for 10 to 15 seconds, then turn again, and again. Repeating until desired doneness. It works very nicely!
Isn’t that thermodynamically impossible? Once the heat source is removed, where would this pent up ghost heat come from?
Presumably, it’s only the center of the steak which continues to heat up, as heat migrates in from the outer portions (which, of course, cool off a bit as a result).
There’s actually a couple page spread in Modernist Cuisine about this method, including graphs, charts, and photos of steaks flipped just once versus every 15 seconds. They say it’s better than flipping once, because you avoid overcooking the side of the steak that’s on the heat, and the middle cooks more evenly as well:
Just looked this up - yup, you’re right. The heat on the outer surface of the meat continues to diffuse inwards until an equilibrium is reached and the core is at its peak temperature. At that point, the effect reverses and it starts to cool. In fact, it’s practically impossible to stop food from continuing to cook for a few minutes after pulling it from the heat source - even plunging it into cold water won’t stop it (contrary to popular opinion).
Chronos has it correct. This is a standard technique with pretty much any reasonably thick cut of meat you’re cooking (particularly in roasts). Take it out a few degrees under desired doneness and let it rest anywhere from 5-30+ minutes (depending on thickeness; a 2-inch steak should be fine after 5-10 minutes. A brisket or pork shoulder you’re looking at a half hour to even an hour+) to account for this carryover heat. Also, the resting process, other than distributing the heat into the core, also helps redistribute the juices. They say the carryover generally accounts for 5-15 extra degrees in doneness. In my observation, 5-7 degrees is typical for steak.
After all of my study of The Sciences, I never questioned the carryover cooking thing, even though it made no sense to me.
Totally does now. I guess I had thought a hot pan was transferring heat.
Yes. Just as effective as a Salamander.
I was convinced that getting much more than +5 degrees was impossible, even though +10 degrees is usually given as the figure. But I usually don’t have the time to let the meat get to room temp before cooking. I haven’t checked many room temp samples yet, but I think they are getting something like the +10 increase. This is probably a result of not hitting the coldest point of the meat in the colder steaks with the thermometer, and the heat distributing more evenly in the warmer steaks.
What’s cool is you can cut a roast in half, cover the open face of the meat with plastic wrap, and watch the center continue to cook.
Inspired by this thread, I tried the OP’s technique with a bacon-wrapped tenderloin.
I preheated the pan and plate to 500, seared the seasoned steak for 45 seconds on each side over high heat, then transferred the pan back into the oven and let it cook 4 minutes on a side. I pulled it out, transferred it to the heated plate, threw some butter on top, and dug in.
Verdict:
Definitely one of the better steaks i’ve ever cooked myself. It was EXTREMELY juicy, hot throughout, and tender, though with the butter it was also very much on the greasy side. I was going for medium-well, and I MOSTLY got it - the side resting on the plate came out right, but the top-side was a little pinker than I prefer. I’m thinking in the future i’ll need to cook it longer on the first side, to compensate for the extra cooking from the heated plate on the second side.
I watched them grilling steaks at Steve’s Dakota Grill the other day. It was quite intriguing. They had a “unique” method to say the least. They grilled their steaks on a pretty standard High Temp Flame Gas Restaurant Grill but they used weighted presses on the steaks as they cooked on the gril. Lots of compression/searing and high heat. It kind of shocked me as the sirloin I had was a really good probably prime piece of meat, but my medium order was more on the midrare side. It was a good steak for a mid to upper range steakhouse, but I’m not quite sure of their technique… it was pretty juicy but a little tough, very fatty sirloin as well.
Why would you put more butter on top of a bacon wrapped tenderloin? Also, how long did you let it rest before you ate it, or did you in fact dig right in? If you gave it 5 minutes to rest, it probably would not have been so pink.
I was inspired by the recent steak threads so cooked a steak last night. I have a charcoal grill which has a feature I can’t live without anymore - it has a fire pit I can raise and lower to better control the heat. At its highest level the flames from the coals come through the grate so it’s very hot! Last night I put the steaks over indirect heat for 5 minutes per side (even though it wasn’t directly over the fire I knew the radiant heat would still do some cooking) until the meat reached an internal temp between 90 - 95 degrees. Then I put it directly over the coals for 2 minutes per side until it reached 120 inside. After I let it rest I cut into it and it looked exactly like the famous Ruth’s Chris picture. Charred on the outside - nice red interior. It was easily the best steak I’ve ever grilled and is my new preferred technique for steaks. Thanks guys!
Interesting thing that they do here, they charge almost 2$ extra to have the steak coated in their special “Peppercorn Blend” (basically au poivre… just coated in pepper and grilled- no sauce.) . The culinarian and “steakhouse guy” in me thought it was quite bold and a smart business move, but the customer in me couldn’t help but feel ripped off. Paying for the seasoning??
The server was great except he brought my steak at the same time as my salad… That was not quite right and the place wasn’t even busy, I only tipped 15% instead of 20%. Just couldn’t let that go and I feel kinda dickish and maybe a little guilty about it… but this guy wasn’t a rookie, he timed it badly and sent the order back too quickly.
This guy was good, he almost had me buying some Waldo (OH) Wine. A local “fruity and sweet” vintage… no doubt German-Erie Islands in influence and vinting.
Another possibility, it could have been a premature steak from the kitchen, I mean what it ultimately showed was a miscommunication between the Waiter and Kitchen. Thought they would have worked that out with modern tech? Not like the digital we had to work with nigh on twenty years ago, rubbing sticks together. We might have had an excuse back then, but today it shows clear slacking.
There is a pretty good step-by-step for the home grill aficionado here. I used to work in a classic 70s style “dark wood and relish trays” place and this was indeed how we did it. But I don’t know if you can get your average home grill as hot as this recommends. Still worth a look, tho: