146 replies to this topic

[Felonius]

I have always favored dual zone charcoal grilling for thick steaks. Now that I live in NYC without a grill, I've tried various methods with pan and oven with mixed results. I came across this thread and decided to try the Ducasse/Shaw method.

I used prime dry aged porterhouse and shell steaks from Ottomanelli's on Bleecker Street. I have tried a number of the top butchers in the city, but for a combination of quality, selection, value and service I dont think you can beat Ottomanelli's. If I am going to cook a steak, I make the trip to Bleecker.

The steaks were 2" thick and I followed the Ducasse method outlined in the NY times using the butter and garlic at the end of the cooking process. The crust and flavor were just amazing! I'd say these steaks were as good if not better than anything I've had at Lugers, Sparks, Keens, etc. However, I found that using the 10 minute per side suggestion they were a bit overcooked for my taste - really more medium than medium rare. One problem may be that I am cooking with electric (one of those Gaggenau ceramic top jobbies) and not the gas range I grew up cooking on. I have had problems overcooking on this electric range. I used two pans, one copper and one cast iron and set the burners to 4.5 (the setting range is 1-9). The cast iron skillet got too hot even at that setting and I had to back it off to about 3.5 The copper pan seemed to hold a more even heat, and was easier to control.

The other factor that may have affected my results was the fact I had let the meat sit out for well over an hour, so it was probably pretty close to true room temperature.

So here's my question, what's the best way to control temperature in a pan on an electric range like this? Other than feel, is there a thermometer than can be used to set the perfect pan temperature? I don't always have great luck using a meat thermometer on steaks and I don't like to have to pierce the steak anyway. When grilling or using the oven I find that just using the old fashioned touch "thumb" method gives me my temp. However, steaks this thick and with the sort of crust produced with the Ducasse method aren't so easy for me to judge by touch. I suppose if I just experiment enough I'll get this down, but these experiments can be expensive on dry aged prime steak! Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Edited by Felonius, 25 March 2011 - 03:49 PM.

[qrn]

I use an infra red thermometer, you point it at what you want to test,push the button and it gives you the temp,,works from as far as 3 or 4 feet, you can go around your house and shoot the walls ceiling etc and see where it colder than other places
Bud

[OliverB]

if it's a thick steak I put in a wired bbq thermometer and it stays in there, no need to poke holes again. Get the pan very hot, you can use an infra red thermometer, I have one and it's a great tool. If you buy one, make sure it goes to high temp, mine goes to over 900 degree I think. Many don't go that high. I've never used it on my pan, I use it to see if my bbq is above 600 degree for steak. I don't know what the "perfect pan temperature" would be, if I cook steak on the stove the temp is "very hot" in a cast iron skillet and I turn the steak often (otherwise I'd get charcoal as crust) with a wired bbq thermometer stuck in from the side. I trust that more than my poking pinching or probing, and with an expensive steak I don't like to gamble.

I also have the steak at room temp.

I did not read back here what the Ducasse method is, I just find that high heat and flipping often works for me, very little gray and nice med-rare meat all through.

[Crouton]

For me lately it's been cooking the steak under (not on top of) a chimney starter.... I've yet to find a better method that produces as much intense heat, including all the various methods in this thread that I've tried over the years.

[Felonius]

if it's a thick steak I put in a wired bbq thermometer and it stays in there, no need to poke holes again. Get the pan very hot, you can use an infra red thermometer, I have one and it's a great tool. If you buy one, make sure it goes to high temp, mine goes to over 900 degree I think. Many don't go that high. I've never used it on my pan, I use it to see if my bbq is above 600 degree for steak. I don't know what the "perfect pan temperature" would be, if I cook steak on the stove the temp is "very hot" in a cast iron skillet and I turn the steak often (otherwise I'd get charcoal as crust) with a wired bbq thermometer stuck in from the side. I trust that more than my poking pinching or probing, and with an expensive steak I don't like to gamble.

I also have the steak at room temp.

I did not read back here what the Ducasse method is, I just find that high heat and flipping often works for me, very little gray and nice med-rare meat all through.

Thanks for the tip. I've never seen an infra red thermometer but will have to try one. Assuming I can now measure my pan temperature, this begs the question of what would be the ideal temp for the Ducasse/Shaw cooking method? I think I remember reading somewhere that the Maillard reaction in beef starts at or above 310F, so I'm guessing this would be the low limit for the slow cook in the pan method. Someone earlier in the thread did some sort of calculation to come up with an estimated temp of 170C (or 340F) in Fat Guy's pan. Has anyone using this method actually checked their pan temp?

Edited by Felonius, 25 March 2011 - 11:03 PM.

[OliverB]

I can measure it next time I heat up the pan, but I'm absolutely sure that it's way above 340 degree.

I'll have to read about the Ducasse method, forgot what that was, I'll look up thread.

The IR thermometer I have is a Kintrex IRT0421, I think I spent around $40 or so on it on Amazon, maybe a bit more. Has a laser pointer so you know what you measure, fun toy, but do NOT point it at people or at least faces/eyes of course. But I just found out that my flat screen monitor is 15 degree warmer than my house, which is currently at 60 degree, since the heater is having hickups. Must move closer to screen....

ETA: this is an old thread, but it mentions SV, which I've used with great success on all kinds of steaks lately. I particularly like that SV really frees up my hands and timing during the week, I can prep a steak and let it float after lunch or mid afternoon, run errands, take the kids here or there, come home, make sides and salad, wait for my wife to come home and then sear the steak in a blasting hot cast iron skillet for some 30 sec each side. Perfect meat, med rare, wonderful crust. I prefer that over the torch method, which I use at times, first with a propane torch from the hardware store, now with a butane torch from the kitchen supply store. I like the even crunchy crust the cast iron pan gives a lot better.

Also make them on my Big Green Egg, which gets up to over 600 degree and makes a wonderful steak, but it's still a bit cold and way too wet outside right now.

Edited by OliverB, 26 March 2011 - 10:40 AM.

[Dave the Cook]

Thanks for the tip. I've never seen an infra red thermometer but will have to try one. Assuming I can now measure my pan temperature, this begs the question of what would be the ideal temp for the Ducasse/Shaw cooking method? I think I remember reading somewhere that the Maillard reaction in beef starts at or above 310F, so I'm guessing this would be the low limit for the slow cook in the pan method. Someone earlier in the thread did some sort of calculation to come up with an estimated temp of 170C (or 340F) in Fat Guy's pan. Has anyone using this method actually checked their pan temp?

Maillard reactions actually start much lower that that. From Modernist Cuisine (3-90):

By the time the surface of a cut of meat or a piece of seafood has dried out enough for its temperature to reach 115°C/240°F, the pace of the Maillard reaction, as judged from the developing aroma and color, will have picked up. By 130°C/265°F, the reaction is going at full tilt.

To give a quick recap of the Ducasse/Shaw method:

• Starting with the fatty edge, sear the steak on all sides, taking about ten minutes total. This usually means two minutes per surface, more or less.
• Reduce the heat of the pan and add a big chunk of butter.
• Return the steak to the pan and baste frequently.
• Cook ten minutes per side, turning just once.
• Rest the steak for 15 minutes.

Combining all of that with McGee's observation that frequent flipping mitigates overcooking (something I've tested and found to be true), and I'm tempted to alter the Ducasse/Shaw method by monitoring the pan temperature more closely, trying to keep it around 300°F, and flipping every minute to allow the meat surface to cool a bit before dousing it in butter again.

[Felonius]

Thanks for the tip. I've never seen an infra red thermometer but will have to try one. Assuming I can now measure my pan temperature, this begs the question of what would be the ideal temp for the Ducasse/Shaw cooking method? I think I remember reading somewhere that the Maillard reaction in beef starts at or above 310F, so I'm guessing this would be the low limit for the slow cook in the pan method. Someone earlier in the thread did some sort of calculation to come up with an estimated temp of 170C (or 340F) in Fat Guy's pan. Has anyone using this method actually checked their pan temp?

Maillard reactions actually start much lower that that. From Modernist Cuisine (3-90):

By the time the surface of a cut of meat or a piece of seafood has dried out enough for its temperature to reach 115°C/240°F, the pace of the Maillard reaction, as judged from the developing aroma and color, will have picked up. By 130°C/265°F, the reaction is going at full tilt.

To give a quick recap of the Ducasse/Shaw method:

• Starting with the fatty edge, sear the steak on all sides, taking about ten minutes total. This usually means two minutes per surface, more or less.
• Reduce the heat of the pan and add a big chunk of butter.
• Return the steak to the pan and baste frequently.
• Cook ten minutes per side, turning just once.
• Rest the steak for 15 minutes.

Combining all of that with McGee's observation that frequent flipping mitigates overcooking (something I've tested and found to be true), and I'm tempted to alter the Ducasse/Shaw method by monitoring the pan temperature more closely, trying to keep it around 300°F, and flipping every minute to allow the meat surface to cool a bit before dousing it in butter again.

Interesting, I had no idea the Maillard reaction started that low. So I wonder if a pan temp of around 300F would be ideal. It might take a bit longer but cook the interior of the steak more evenly?

As for your recap of the Ducasse/Shaw method, I'm now confused on step 1. I thought step 1 merely meant searing/reducing the fat on the narrow sides or edges of a thick steak, and that this was done at the same temp as the later steps. I didn't see anything about searing all sides of the steak on a higher temp and then reducing heat for the butter cooking/basting.

I'm going to have to get some more steaks and experiment a bit. I think I'm going to try this method with only 7-8 minutes a side to see if I can get a true medium rare.

[Dave the Cook]

Interesting, I had no idea the Maillard reaction started that low. So I wonder if a pan temp of around 300F would be ideal. It might take a bit longer but cook the interior of the steak more evenly?

That's my thinking, too.

As for your recap of the Ducasse/Shaw method, I'm now confused on step 1. I thought step 1 merely meant searing/reducing the fat on the narrow sides or edges of a thick steak, and that this was done at the same temp as the later steps. I didn't see anything about searing all sides of the steak on a higher temp and then reducing heat for the butter cooking/basting.

You're right. Reducing the heat might be called the "Scantland variation" on the Ducasse/Shaw method. I can't recall when I came up with it, but most likely it's due to a combination of things: the experiments I did to write my Daily Gullet article "The Chronicles of Chuck," reading up on the Colicchcio method that partly inspired the article, and the fierceness of my cooktop. Sorry for the confusion.

Edited by Dave the Cook, 26 March 2011 - 10:29 PM.
Spelling.

[Felonius]

So before I go out and buy an IR thermometer, is there any way I can I use a regular meat or cooking thermometer to check the pan temperature? Maybe just touch the end of it to the pan, or is this futile? I'd really like to know my pan temperature and then experiment with the time it takes to cook the steak to different levels of doneness. If I can get this down and know the exact setting/time on my cooktop to get my usual pan to the desired temp, and if I get the same steak cut at the butcher, in the future it should be easy to cook by time and not have to deal with thermometers at all.

[Fat Guy]

It does sound like your pan is too hot. In terms of a target temperature, even if you measure with a Raytek or equivalent thermometer, you'll have to find the right temperature for your pan and stove -- variations in thermal capacity etc. mean that not all 300-degree-F pans are created equal. IR thermometers seem more useful for cooking things like pancakes where the griddle-surface temperature is very important. I'd be more inclined to take a temperature reading on the meat itself, and I wouldn't worry about puncturing -- I've never known it to matter. I'd pull it 6-7 degrees below target.

[dcarch]

"------ is there any way I can I use a regular meat or cooking thermometer to check the pan temperature? ---"

No.

Get an IR remote read thermometer. It's not that expensive.

dcarch

[Felonius]

It does sound like your pan is too hot. In terms of a target temperature, even if you measure with a Raytek or equivalent thermometer, you'll have to find the right temperature for your pan and stove -- variations in thermal capacity etc. mean that not all 300-degree-F pans are created equal. IR thermometers seem more useful for cooking things like pancakes where the griddle-surface temperature is very important. I'd be more inclined to take a temperature reading on the meat itself, and I wouldn't worry about puncturing -- I've never known it to matter. I'd pull it 6-7 degrees below target.

I tried this method again last night on similar 2" thick Ribeyes. I set my stove lower to begin, at "4" on the dial of my Gaggenau ceramic coil range. I was using two pans, a small cast iron skillet for one steak and a Demeyere stainless for the other two. After browning the edges for 8 minutes, I did 8 minutes the first side and 7 on the second side, then checked temp. The cast iron skillet steak was definitely cooking faster, and I could feel that the pan just got hotter at the same setting than the Demeyere pan. At my first temp check with my new thermometer (a CDN instant read digital)the steaks in the Demeyer pan were only at about 105 so I left them on for the full ten minutes on the second side. When I took them off and checked the temp again they were already cruising past 135F. They still tasted good, but again were closer to medium than medium rare. Clearly the timing is absolutely crucial, as it seems the difference between medium rare and medium is only maybe a minute.

I may indeed have my pans too hot, it's just hard for me to believe that I need to use a setting of "3" on my stove. The pans just don't seem very hot at that setting and I was worried I would get enough browning. Next time I'll try it at 3 or 3.5 and see what happens.

Edited by Felonius, 28 March 2011 - 02:07 PM.

[Jmahl]

Just grilled up these locally grown, grass fed steaks from Rancho Ojo de Agua.



Used a method tought to me by my late son Philip where a cast iron griddle is placed in a gas grill with a stone under one end. Grilled the steak 8 min. on a side then directly on the grill for a little char. Tested for doneness with instant read therm. to 120 degrees.

[Felonius]

Just grilled up these locally grown, grass fed steaks from Rancho Ojo de Agua.



Used a method tought to me by my late son Philip where a cast iron griddle is placed in a gas grill with a stone under one end. Grilled the steak 8 min. on a side then directly on the grill for a little char. Tested for doneness with instant read therm. to 120 degrees.

How thick are those? And if you have one, please post a picture of them when cooked!

[eternal]

I've used this method with giant, double-cut porkchops and just a final few minutes in the oven at 400 and it worked very well.

[Ann_T]

I do thick New York Strips and one rib prime ribs (presalted) on the grill. At least two inches thick. The grill is heated to high and the steak/roast is seared on both sides and then left to finish cooking over indirect heat. The middle burner of the grill is turned off and the left and right burners are left on high. Taken off the grill when the internal temperature reaches 110 to 112° and left to rest while the vegetables finish cooking.





Roast is then just cut into two slices.

[Gregg]

I had standard, USDA choice, grocery store rib eyes cut to 1 3/4". Pulled them from the fridge about 30 minutes before starting to cook. I'm fairly certain the centers were still much cooler than the surface of the steaks, which is part of my standard technique because my family does not go beyond medium rare willingly and most prefer a warm red center. Anyway, followed Fat Guy's version of Ducasse's method pretty much to the letter in cast iron pans. The exceptions were that I kept the heat a little lower than true medium (whatever that is) and flipped the steaks a little more often, letting one surface of the steak cool slightly before returning it to the butter. The pan was apparently just cool enough to be below the burn point of the butter because it never did burn, but was high enough to generate a wonderful Maillard reaction. I did exchange it at mid-point just to be sure, but don't think it would have been necessary. The crust that developed was like nothing that has ever come off my stove before. A truly transcendent moment for me. I'm planning to try this with a Lobel's steak if my refinance is approved. Thanks Fat Guy!

[OliverB]

Last night's steak was cooked at about 620 degree in my big green egg, flipped a couple times and the probe was in it all the time. Got side tracked with kids and rest of dinner prep and took them off a min too late for ideal mid rare, but still was very tasty. I love that this bbq can get up to such intense heat (and very quick too!). The steaks were a bit under 1 inch I'd guess, just s&p on them. Got a really nice crunchy crust with nice grill marks, even on just the regular grill, have to de-winter (wash) the cast iron grill first.

Also refreshed a nice loaf of sourdough bread in it, served it all with butter sauteed asparagus and poached eggs. My 2nd attempt at poaching, and it worked very well, cooked one egg at a time in a mid size sauce pan, kept them warm in water bath until serving. Fun stuff, the little one was all excited to see it turn white

Fun dinner to celebrate the first sunny and warm day in a long while here in the Bay Area!

[Felonius]

I tried the original method from the Ducasse article last night on two strips. One was a nearly 2.5" thick cut from Ottomanellis on Bleecker St. and the other a 1.5" cut from Florence butchers on Jones St. The thinner steak cooked quite quickly, after only about 6-7 minutes a side it was slightly overdone to medium. One thing I'm finding is that the internal temp of the steaks can really shoot up quickly after about 110 degrees, and overcooking them can be a matter of a minute or less. I think from now on, I'm going to take them off at 120 degrees. I'm cooking at a setting of 4 on my Gaggenau ceramic range, but maybe this is still too hot.

The 2.5" steak took much longer to cook. After browning the edges for 8 minutes, it took about 12 minutes a side to get the steak to medium rare. At that point, the outside had begun to develop a bit of unpleasant char, despite replacing the butter in the pan twice. I suspect that if I had left the steak out of the fridge for longer (it was out for maybe 30 minutes), I would have had better results.

So far, I've had the best outcome using this method with ribeyes cut 2" thick. That to me seems the optimal cut for both flavor and ease of preparation using this method.

I was also interested in a quality comparison between Ottomanellis and Florence butchers. The strip from Florence Butchers looked like it had been aged slightly longer (the butcher said they age a minimum of 21 days), but was not quite as nicely marbled as the strip from Ottomanellis. I and my friend who ate the steaks agreed that the Florence cut had a slightly more mineral "dry aged" flavor, but overall preferred the Ottomanellis steak. Ottomanellis also charges $1 or $2 less per pound, so I'm going to continue using them as my regular butcher.

Edited by Felonius, 01 April 2011 - 03:52 PM.

[paulraphael]

Last fall I needed to serve steak to a dozen people. I had four burners and no help in the kitchen, so the Ducasse method (and other methods I've used) weren't going to work. The solution was both obvious and trendy: sous vide and relax. I borrowed an immersion circulator from a friend and bought test meat to run some trials. I was interested in how to get some of the butter overtones from the Ducasse method. I was also curious to discover what my actual favorite internal temperature is for beef. Here's the winning methodology:




My butcher hooked us up with some very prime, 8-week dry-aged beef. Five from the loin, one from the rib. I salted and peppered the steak and sealed each in a ziplock bag with about 1.5 oz melted, cultured butter. The butter was for flavor and also to help evacuate the air (I don't have a vacuum machine, so I get the air out by immersing the bagged food in water).




The winning combination was 2-1/2 hours at 54°C. This is below the pasteurization temperature for beef, so going much longer isn't adivseable. The results were also so tender that I'd be afraid of a longer cook having excessive tenderizing effect.




I then trimmed the meat from the bones, dried it, and brushed lightly with a weak glucose / baking soda solution to boost the maillard reactions. I seared it on a very hot griddle, flipping a couple of times. Total sear was probably less than a minute per side.




Everyone got a a few slices of strip, and a bit of tenderloin and rib. I served it with a sauce made from beef coulis, wild mushrooms, and sage.

The moral of the story is that returning the circulator broke my heart. This method allow the steaks to be cooked perfectly, and also absolutely consistently from steak to steak, and with just a few minutes lag between the first steak coming off the heat and the last one landing on the table. It's always a challenge getting rare / semi-rare meat to the table warm, since it isn't more than warm to begin with.

In addition, this required NO SKILL. Once I'd worked out the method, it could have been executed by monkeys.

Compared with the Ducasse method, I'd say that the crust wasn't quite as thick or as buttery. But the gradient was smaller and the doneness was more reliably perfect, and it was much easier. It should be possible to increase the crustiness with some refinement, if that's your goal. There are many variables to play with when searing.

Edited by paulraphael, 04 April 2011 - 10:44 AM.

[Phaz]

Last weekend I was doing a few really thick bone in ribeyes. The kitchen I was doing them in didn't have a gas burner, so I didn't want to try the Ducasse method, plus doing multiple steaks, time was an issue.

So like the above post, I did them SV. However, to sear them I threw them under the chimney starter (as talked about in another thread mentioning Alton Brown). It was insane how strong of a crust they built up. Within 20 seconds you could see the proteins on the top of the steak bubbling, 1 minute per side was plenty for a good sear.

Here's the only shot I got of them (they were cut and devoured pretty quick): link

That one I did 1 min 30 sec on both sides to see what kind of difference it built up.

As good as those were, I still don't enjoy ribeyes that are done SV. The fat never seems to render as much as it does on the grill. When I grill a ribeye I can eat the entire thing and really enjoy it all. When I SV them, even with this searing, they come out sub par. I have to cut the fat away because it just isn't as juicy or appetizing.

[Dave the Cook]

Last weekend I was doing a few really thick bone in ribeyes. The kitchen I was doing them in didn't have a gas burner, so I didn't want to try the Ducasse method, plus doing multiple steaks, time was an issue.

I can assure you that the method works just fine on an electric burner, as shown here.

[Felonius]

Last fall I needed to serve steak to a dozen people. I had four burners and no help in the kitchen, so the Ducasse method (and other methods I've used) weren't going to work. The solution was both obvious and trendy: sous vide and relax. I borrowed an immersion circulator from a friend and bought test meat to run some trials. I was interested in how to get some of the butter overtones from the Ducasse method. I was also curious to discover what my actual favorite internal temperature is for beef. Here's the winning methodology:




My butcher hooked us up with some very prime, 8-week dry-aged beef. Five from the loin, one from the rib. I salted and peppered the steak and sealed each in a ziplock bag with about 1.5 oz melted, cultured butter. The butter was for flavor and also to help evacuate the air (I don't have a vacuum machine, so I get the air out by immersing the bagged food in water).




The winning combination was 2-1/2 hours at 54°C. This is below the pasteurization temperature for beef, so going much longer isn't adivseable. The results were also so tender that I'd be afraid of a longer cook having excessive tenderizing effect.




I then trimmed the meat from the bones, dried it, and brushed lightly with a weak glucose / baking soda solution to boost the maillard reactions. I seared it on a very hot griddle, flipping a couple of times. Total sear was probably less than a minute per side.




Everyone got a a few slices of strip, and a bit of tenderloin and rib. I served it with a sauce made from beef coulis, wild mushrooms, and sage.

The moral of the story is that returning the circulator broke my heart. This method allow the steaks to be cooked perfectly, and also absolutely consistently from steak to steak, and with just a few minutes lag between the first steak coming off the heat and the last one landing on the table. It's always a challenge getting rare / semi-rare meat to the table warm, since it isn't more than warm to begin with.

In addition, this required NO SKILL. Once I'd worked out the method, it could have been executed by monkeys.

Compared with the Ducasse method, I'd say that the crust wasn't quite as thick or as buttery. But the gradient was smaller and the doneness was more reliably perfect, and it was much easier. It should be possible to increase the crustiness with some refinement, if that's your goal. There are many variables to play with when searing.

Very interesting, thanks for posting all that!

A few questions for you. What kind of immersion circulator is that? I'm guessing they are super expensive, but curious anyway.

What exactly was the mixture you used to promote the Maillard reaction? Where did you come up with this?

I really like the idea of being able to do something like this, as I sometimes want to serve more than six people out of my tiny NYC kitchen, but don't have the burner and oven space to do enough steaks and get them out simultaneously.

[paulraphael]

That's the standard Poly Science circulator that you'll see a lot of people using. They go for about $1000, which is why I don't have one. There are other options, though ... quite a few people here have a Sous Vide Supreme. I'm sure someone can comment on its suitability for a project of this scale. I used a 20 quart stock pot for a container. I might have been able to use a somewhat smaller one.

I brushed the meat with this formula:


-100g water or water plus pan drippings.
-1.5g dextrose (or 2 to 4g corn syrup or glucose syrup)
-0.5g baking soda

A light coat of this on dried meat before browning should theoretically help. Its real benefit is to allow better, faster browning with less heat (it's ideal with a 400°F pan temperature). I haven't experimented enough to have a verdict. I got this idea from conversations here and from some techie research.

Possibly the best way to brown this meat would be with a deep fryer. It would be so brief that you would need no breading; the meat wouldn't have any fried qualities.

Short of that, it would probably have helped if I'd used a pan instead of a griddle, and poured in a thicker layer of oil. It would have allowed crust on the whole surface of the meat, including indendations.

A circulator would be great in a small NYC kitchen. Cook for an army (while you're doing domething else) and then hide it when you're done.

Edited by paulraphael, 04 April 2011 - 07:33 PM.

[paulraphael]

As good as those were, I still don't enjoy ribeyes that are done SV. The fat never seems to render as much as it does on the grill. When I grill a ribeye I can eat the entire thing and really enjoy it all. When I SV them, even with this searing, they come out sub par. I have to cut the fat away because it just isn't as juicy or appetizing.

What temperature are you cooking to?

This is really more about time and temperature than method. The only way grilling is going to render off a significant amount of that fat is if you're overcooking the meat. My guess is that when cooking sous vide, you're somewhat undercooking it.

I always order this kind of meat rare at restaurants, which made me assume 49°-51°c would be right for these steaks, but I greatly prefered them cooked to 54°C ... what a lot of chefs would call the low end of medium rare. That's the point at which all the marbling was effectively melted.

I suspect this is because with conventional cooking methods, there's always some gradient, so only the meat at the very center will actually be as cool as your target temperature.

[JoNorvelleWalker]

I stumbled upon this thread a couple of weeks ago. Two inch steaks are a bit beyond my means but I used this method to cook a lean Australian ribeye with very good results. Tonight I used the method to prepare a boneless pork chop that was delicious. Just the barest hint of pink with a lovely crust. I used rendered pork fat. Best pork chop, I believe, that I have ever cooked -- though that is not saying much. My pork chops are usually more like toasted wall board. While the chop was resting I sauteed brussels sprouts in the fat and garlic.

Wine was a 2000 Muscadet Sevre & Maine Sur Lie that was a beautiful nutty brown and had no flavor. My stupidity.

Seriously, though, thank you for the inspiration.