[ravenstine]

In a similar vain, I recommend getting a sous vide circulator. You'll make perfect steaks and pork chops every time, and it's extremely clean and convenient. You can cook all sorts of other things sous vide style as well.

I recently got one, and I've been cooking at home a lot more often as a result. I think more people would cook their own food if they knew how to make it taste really good.

[komali2]

I fully support the value system here in that we both want people cooking for themselves more, but I have to say that sous vide cooked steaks taste like boiled meat to me, aka terrible. People around me are swear by it until I slap a ribeye onto the pan for them, high heat, making sure to render the fat.

To each their own but imo a sous vide is a big, expensive, plastic waste of counter space.

[tashoecraft]

If sous vide is tasting really bad to you, you’re doing it wrong. Almost certainly you’re not doing the final step, finish in a pan. You shouldn’t take something right from the sous vide to the plate, hit it in the pan at the highest heat you possible can to get the Maillard reaction and develop the crust.

[komali2]

So you're getting the pan out, oiled, and hot anyway. You're gonna have to clean it. And while on the pan a rare is slowly turning to well. Why not just do it all on the pan??

[Tehchops]

You're thinking only in the context of the traditional "steak" cuts like Ribeye or NYS.

Sous vide opens up a wider selection of cuts that can be used, which traditionally do not cook well on a grill or in a pan.

Skirt steak, for instance, which has great flavor, but is difficult to cook correctly, can be cooked perfectly in sous vide.

[ravenstine]

Because with a skillet on high heat, it really doesn't take long to sear a steak and still keep it pretty rare. It also depends on the kind of pan you're using. A cheap pan will have a different heat distribution than a cast iron skillet.

Yes, you have to clean the pan. This is precisely why I use a torch to sear my meat. Even with the few times I use a pan, I prefer it because the reduced time on the pan means less oils splattering around my stove top, and I do think that the pan is still an easier clean this way. But that can all be avoided by using a good torch.

[Spellman]

Because not everyone can get the timing right and heat consistent enough to properly cook from start to finish in a pan. Especially as you get to thicker cuts.

Sous vide takes out the guesswork for getting the insides to the right temp. Then just get the pan as hot as possible for quick sear in a pan for the outside.

[komali2]

> Because not everyone can get the timing right and heat consistent enough to properly cook from start to finish in a pan.

I understand this point, the point of sous vide is consistency, but I disagree that not everyone can get the timing right. With practice, anybody absolutely can get it right. And if they have hundreds of dollars plus the counterspace to throw at a sous vide machine, they have the resources to cook a couple "bad" steaks before they start getting it right.

[ravenstine]

Right, but not everyone wants to. One of the reasons I gave up cooking steaks the normal way was because I can easily get distracted by checking something on my computer, a few minutes go by, and then the steak doesn't come out the way I wanted. This is a personal failing, but at the same time doing it sous vide helps avoid that problem. Hours can go by and a steak will still come out pretty good.

> And if they have hundreds of dollars plus the counterspace to throw at a sous vide machine

Exactly how much counter space do you think a sous vide machine takes up? Maybe there's some out there that are huge, IDK, but most of the consumer grade ones sold are like half the size of a wine bottle and can be attached to any container. You could probably even attach it to a kitchen sink if you wanted to.

[Spellman]

Not disagreeing, and honestly it's much faster to do in a pan.

Still, I also understand the appeal. More precise, less issues if something interrupts you, and perhaps the best benefit is batch cooking steaks. Especially when starting, using sous vide can help you focus on getting the sear right and not ruining your steak.

Plus, with thicker steaks, you often need better pan temp control or the use of an oven to help get it to cook evenly. And that's just an extra layer of hassle that takes time to master as well.

But I concede it can also be a crutch for a relatively easy cooking skill.

[jwdunne]

Was going to reply with this, you need to brown a steak. That’s where the flavour comes from. Much easier to brown a steak that is already warm too. Would need to be careful of overcooking if you’re used to 90 secs each side on a seating hot pan.

[ravenstine]

It sounds like it's the people around you doing sous vide wrong and you're actually doing it correctly(by virtue of searing the steak). I've never heard anyone suggest eating a sous vide steak without searing it or using a torch to brown it, render the fat, etc. A sous vide steak should still taste at least halfway decent without searing because of the amount of salt and seasoning used in the process.

Your viewpoint is totally valid, though I still encourage people to give it a try for themselves. They don't even need a circulator the first time they do it, although I do think they're worth the money. A lot of restaurants actually sous vide their steaks before searing them, so if someone's sous vide steak is coming out terrible then I suspect something really went wrong in the process. Either not enough salt and seasoning was used(sous vide calls for a lot of salt), or they didn't properly sear the steak.

[kls]

In culinary school we where taught that a steak does not touch the flame until it is room temperature. The reason for this is it shocks the steak and causes it to draw up, it takes longer to draw out the moisture in the surface and it allows some of the organic decay of the fat. Most restaurants use sous vide to short circuit this process as they can hold them in immersion below rare temp and then take them directly to the grill. Nothing wrong with this, it accomplishes the same end result and that is you don't seize the meat and cause it to draw up and you pull some of the moisture out of the surface while breaking down some of the fat.

I think most people mess up on doing it all in a pan due to the fact that they go from at least fridge cold to the pan. Put one on the counter, salt it, cover it and let it sit for an hour or two and most people will be surprised at how well of a steak they can produce in a pan. If one really wants a good crust, leave it salted and uncovered in the fridge to dry for 3 day. It takes a lot of energy to evaporate moisture and you need the moisture out of the surface to brown a steak rapidly.

That being said I use my sous vide machine to bring them to temp as it also does a better job of distributing the salt and garlic I like to use.

[ravenstine]

Thanks for the insight! I didn't think that letting a steak get to room temperature would make that big of a difference!

[bronco21016]

Yea I’ve found the same. Nothing like slapping a nice marbled ribeye on a hot grill.

I will say though the sous vide does work really well for some things. Batch cooking of chicken breast, venison in nearly any form, and various cuts of pork that you want rare but want to make sure it’s safe to eat.

[faheywf]

Have the steaks you've eaten been seared? That's a key piece to successful sous vide cooking!

[kbutler]

Quick sanity check - are they not finishing the sous vide steaks in the pan/grill?

[komali2]

It takes 2 - 3 minutes in the pan for me from raw... How could they possibly sear the steak without putting it in Well Done territory?

[alexpw]

1. You quickly chill the meat in the freezer (or ice bath) after taking it out of the sous vide. This will help prevent further cooking when searing it, because we only want the sear.

2. You heat the pan as hot as possible, way hotter than normal, so that you can sear with only 10-20 seconds per side. Some use a torch instead.

[falcolas]

Do both. Sous vide to your tastes, then in a hot pan on each side for 3-4 minutes. Best of both worlds, without having to worry about overcooking the outside to get the desired internal doneness.

[OJFord]

> Sous vide to your tastes, then in a hot pan on each side for 3-4 minutes

Cook a steak, and then put each side in a hot pan for 3-4 minutes?!

[mywittyname]

IKR. I sear steaks for 6-7 minutes per side anyway for rare to mid-rare, so I don't see the point in sous viding for hours just to save 3 minutes in the pan.

I love sous vide for tougher cuts that need a long cook time, but using a sous vide for a ribeye is just pointless.

[Spellman]

Yes, it's the reverse sear, and proven to be better by SCIENCE

[OJFord]

I'm not objecting to the order; a raw steak after 3-4 minutes each side is (fairly well!) done - no sous vide needed!

[falcolas]

3-4 minutes per side is insufficient to raise a thick steak to 125 degrees (rare). Below 125 is "Blue", aka raw. Which can be fine as well, but I wouldn't call it a rare steak.

I've seen such steaks (I don't have sous vide myself), and they look like the perfect rare done steak. A nice pink shade throughout, with a beautiful crust.

[komali2]

Scientists better get their hypotenuses straight before they take on my stomach

But, what science?

[GcVmvNhBsU]

https://www.seriouseats.com/2017/03/how-to-reverse-sear-best...

Most likely something from The Food Lab when talking about food and science.

[falcolas]

Hypothesis: Sous vide followed by a sear results in an evenly cooked steak (regardless of thickness) with an awesome crust.

Experimental results: drool

Experiment status: success.

[crookshanked]

Seconding immersion circulator as a purchase. Joule by chefsteps is nice, and small enough to fit in a drawer. Entirely app controlled though and has visual doneness guides and recipes. Helps you get the feel for it for sure. Best part is you can cook from frozen too so if you forget to pull something out to defrost you can just add a little time to the bath.