Sous vide as a fat-free cooking method

[Fat Guy]

I'm not the first to notice this, but I don't think we have really explored the issue: sous-vide cookery is potentially a revolutionary nonfat cooking method.

The other day, I made some boneless, skinless chicken breast cutlets in a water bath. They were delicious. I never thought I'd say that about boneless, skinless chicken breast cutlets. It seems the problem with them is not that they're inherently bad but that they're uniformly ruined by traditional high-temperature cooking methods. They are by definition overcooked. And usually dried out too. Whereas, at low temperature, they actually taste like chicken.

The vacuum sealer also provides the opportunity to season foods deeply without using any fat.

So, while modernist cooking sometimes gets knocked for using artificial chemicals and whatnot, this is at least one area in which a modernist technique can be ideal for those on restricted diets.

[weinoo]

Almost an extension of nouvelle cuisine, then.

[Lisa Shock]

The understanding of the composition of a food and how various cooking techniques affect it have always been a goal of thoughtful cooks. We simply have better (and cheaper) measurement tools now.

We also have better communication venues, like the Internet, which help us weed out misconceptions and inaccurate data. In the past, if a cook thought that doing something arcanely superstitious helped, say, hard-boiled eggs peel more easily, they could latch onto that activity as the only way to cook the eggs properly and perhaps even pass the misinformation on to future generations who might accept it as gospel without challenge. Nowadays, not only might I have access to better equipment to test my method at home, if I make such a claim online, others might test my method and give measurable results of the test to the public at large -adding the failure or success to the current knowledge base.

Historically, we have seen similar improvements to the field, just in longer time frames. Cheap, mass publishing methods in the 1800's made cookbooks affordable to the masses and enabled cookbook authors to reach wider audiences. Magazine publishing expanded at the same time. These venues allowed good, bad, and pedestrian ideas in food science to rise and fall and sometimes re-rise as people read, tried and reviewed the authors' work. Remember that standardized measurement in the home kitchen was once a radical new idea!

Of course, things haven't always worked out perfectly. Some people hold onto old myths and superstitions, like Rachel Ray continuing to write and say on television that searing meat seals in juices decades after McGee definitively debunked it. Hopefully, as communications methods become faster, we'll cycle through inaccurate garbage and dispose of it from the data stream more efficiently in the future.

I can't wait to see how quaint and antiquated today's 'Modernist' cuisine will seem fifty years from now, when we will have far more accurate equipment in our kitchens!

[Kent Wang]

What was your exact recipe for the chicken? I did thighs a few times and it came out a bit too tender (must have been too low temp).

[Fat Guy]

I wish I knew the temperature exactly. Probably about 148F. Plain chicken breast filets with a little poultry stock in the bag. Regular zipper bag with air squeezed out by hand.

[PedroG]

I did chicken breast filets several times, usually bagged with marinade and mustard, cooked at 60.5°C/141°F* for the time needed to pasteurize according to Douglas Baldwin's tables, and seared in almost smoking-hot rice bran oil. They came out fork-tender and juicy every time, even when dropped directly from the freezer into the water-bath. Once I injected them with coconut oil (see http://egullet.org/p1690291), and they came out even more juicy. An accompaniment I like very much is the bell pepper and onion relish Douglas Baldwin describes in his cookbook p.75.

* I prefer 60.5°C to 57.5°C because cooking time for pasteurization is about halved, avoiding drying out and mushiness from longer cooking times while avoiding toughness from higher temperatures.

[Kent Wang]

Searing is a good point to bring up. I agree with Fat Guy that sous vide is a great way to cook without fat, but if you sear it it does introduce a bit of fat. Though at high temperatures I think it doesn't absorb much.

If you really want to avoid fat entirely, you could use a salamander if you have one, or the affordable alternative, a chimney starter.

[Fat Guy]

Or a blowtorch.

[slkinsey]

Post-SV poultry skin never really does crisp up quite right IMO. Unless you completely chill the chicken, air dry the skin and then put it under the broiler.

[Arpucci]

I would suggest you to use a "Hot Air Gun" instead a propane "Blowtorch"...

Edited January 11, 2011 by Arpucci (log)

[Chris Amirault]

Been there, done that. Hot air guns don't get hot enough.

[PedroG]

One of these days we had duck breast. After SV (8h at 58°C/136°F) I dabbed dry and air-dried the cross-hatch-incised skin with a 2000W heat gun (550°C/1020°F only, which I normally use for shrink sleeving), then seared in smoking hot rice bran oil. The skin was acceptably crisp, but maybe not as crisp as it would be when treated separately (which I never ried so far).

Robert Jueneman reported an allegedly 732°C/1350°F heat gun to be insufficient for crusting a ribeye steak in less than five minutes per side, whereas with an Iwatani blowtorch it took him one minute, and in smoking-hot rice bran oil it takes 30 seconds.

But skin-on poultry is of course the contrary of nonfat cooking, and thus strictly speaking off-topic. Well, nonfat is IMO good for Weight Watchers and rather not for foodies.

[ChristieO]

This is what got me into Sous Vide. I can cook a fantastic meal that has everyone drooling with no fat or oil added. It's just the coolest. I've only been doing it for a few months and I am a permanent convert. I just bought my first chamber vacuum sealer and now I'm thinking about buying a counter top Sous Vide cooker.

[OliverB]

I never add fat to my SV bags, and I trim off as much as I can of the meat I use. The fat never renders and just turns into something less than appetizing (or tasty) in most cases. I doubt the searing adds much fat, I use a very thin layer of oil (if I can ever find rice bran oil anywhere I'll use that) and sear for 30-40 sec on very high heat per side.

I think where you have to watch the fat, is if you add a nice (buttery? creamy?) sauce

Chicken breasts come out really wonderful, moist and tender. (my big green egg delivers the same off the grill, but that's an other thread)

Same for pork chops, I never made them since they almost always turn gummy, cooked SV and then seared quickly delivers wonderful moist, juicy and tender meat.

Even my fillet mignon experiment last night turned out awesome tender and moist meat - though pretty bland compared to other beef cuts, an outcome I expected but was curious about. I have two more ready for SV, but I think I'll add some pulverized dried mushrooms and maybe a couple bacon bits to the bag before they go for a swim. Get some flavor into that cut!

I have yet to make vegetables, and there I'd probably be tempted to throw in a bit of butter or olive oil, but it would be interesting to make two bags, one with and one w/o and compare. SV allows for a lot of fun experiments!

[karlos]

I do appreciate the limited fat necessary to make delicious food. Maybe this has been said in the giant sous vide thread but one of the things I LOVE is fish. Not only how it tastes but the kitchen doesn't reek afterwards.