pressure cooker vs low n' slow

[ratgirlny]

First off, yes I do own a pressure cooker one of those trendy Instant Pots. But I have some really basic questions about how it really works. I understand the science - the fact that temperature at which water boils is raised, so that it cooks hotter and faster. But most of the recipes I see are for things that are traditionally cooked low n' slow: oven braises, slow cooker recipes converted over, etc. Isn't "hotter and faster" the opposite of "low n' slow"? How is this different from simply doing my oven braise at a higher temperature? That would take less time too. I am asking because I am trying to figure out which of my oven braise and slow cooker recipes to try in the pressure cooker. While it is great for beans, I haven't been very happy with dishes that I normally do in the slow cooker - the complexity of flavor just isn't there. I had always learned that you have to go low n' slow for complex flavor - maybe that is the issue? Can someone explain how a pressure cooker is different from simply braising hotter and faster?

[btbyrd]

The things that you traditionally cook slow and low are things that are traditionally cooked to death. Often, that means tough, collagen-filled cuts of meat. The reason that these are cooked "low" is that, because they are braises the meat is in a moist cooking environment and using a hotter oven wouldn't bring any advantage. Your oven might be at 500F, but the meat in your braise isn't going to get above 212F if it's submerged in liquid. Pressure cookers allow you to cook in a moist cooking environment but at a higher temp than you could in an oven (or anywhere else at normal atmospheric pressure. Because the water gets so much hotter when you're pressure cooking, foods break down much more quickly than they do when using a slow cooker or doing an oven braise. Both cooking methods are (often) about breaking down collagen using heat and time; it's just that the time is longer and the heat lower when you're doing a traditional braise. 

Apart from the time and temp difference, the key difference between an oven-braise and a PC version is that there's no evaporation/reduction in the pressure cooker, and the top of the meat above the liquid doesn't get as crusty (if that's what you're into). That also goes for exposed veg, which won't get as brown. 

 

A way to improve the flavor of PC braises is to strain them after cooking and reduce the cooking liquid by half to simulate the effect of long evaporation. That's usually what I do. I brown the meat, add stock, pressure cook, strain, and then reduce the liquid. In the meantime, I roast vegetables in the oven. When everything's ready, I toss the meat together with the sauce and the vegetables and hold it at "keep warm" for a while to let the flavors come together. 

Edited October 14, 2017 by btbyrd (log)

[btbyrd]

I can't stress enough the importance of a really hard pre-sear on the meat and vegetables for pressure cooked applications. A boatload of the browning and "roasty" flavor comes at the very beginning of the process. In my experience, the "searing" function of the IP isn't really up to the task. I use a large, wide pan on the stove and work in batches.

 

 

And on another note, be sure that if you add any wine to your PC braises, you reduce it first to concentrate the flavor and drive off the alcohol. Since there's no evaporation in the PC, whatever booze you put in, you'll get back later.

[ratgirlny]

Sorry, still not getting it. Why does braising in a hotter oven bring no advantage, but it does in a pressure cooker?  There is something I am just not getting... And yes, I always brown first, and I also reduce the liquid, whether it is a pressure cooker or a slow cooker. But the results seem better in a slow cooker, and better yet in an oven braise. That is why I am trying to understand what the pressure cooker does exactly beyond simply cooking faster and hotter

[KennethT]

Braising in a hotter oven brings no advantage because the braising liquid can't get hotter than 212F.  When covered, the steam inside can't get hotter than 212F either since the only way you can get hotter than that is under pressure.  The speed of reaction that tenderizes tough meats (collagen turns to gelatin) varies depending on both time and temperature.  The higher the temp, the faster it goes.  But, as btbyrd said, in the pressure cooker, you get no evaporation, so the braising liquid won't thicken that way - you have to thicken it either before or after the fact.

 

As for why oven braising tastes better - I'm not sure why that is, other than something simple like some things just take time - time for flavors to get extracted, mingle, etc...

[IndyRob]

When you change the way you cook something, you have to rethink everything.  It's not just about smashing collagen.  You have to manage what's left at the end.  And those things will be different depending on how you applied your heat.

[Katie Meadow]

I am paying close attention to this thread. I don't own a pressure cooker or a slow cooker or an IP, but I am toying with the idea of getting SOMETHING. I'm leaning toward a simple slow cooker such as the Hamilton Beach Set n Forget. One thing I always find surprising is the number of comments from users who tout the fact that they can't smell what's cooking in any of these machines. I like the smell of the foods I cook permeating the kitchen and beyond.

 

Cooking things quickly is not a priority for me; I'm home a lot during the day. I don't intend to make yogurt in my lifetime. I'm very happy with the rice I cook in a pan. I am not fond of oven braising, not that the food doesn't turn out wonderfully, but I find my Le Creuset takes a beating when it spends hours in the oven. Plus I find it a pain to check on the progress. 

 

One concern I have is temperature control. I have pretty good control with my Viking range and can get a very small flame for maintaining a low simmer to make stocks or cook beans. I most likely would not use a slow-cooker for stocks anyway, since I have a stock pot that is bigger than any slow cooker I would buy. Are most slow cookers able to do a very low simmer? Are there any that can be controlled with more precision that just "low, medium, high"?

 

It is possible that my real reason for getting a slow cooker is absurd. Several years ago I discovered a never-used in original box Crock Pot. You know those old brown and yellow colored objects that everyone in the sixties had? During the late sixties and early seventies I lived in New Mexico and every family seemed to have one of those for beans or pozole. The fact that I came across this pristine artifact in my own basement and had no idea where it came from was enchanting and made me so nostalgic. I brought it up to the kitchen and took it out of the box and promptly dropped it on the tile floor! So much for ceramic. On the one hand the whole episode was hilarious. How could such an accident NOT happen? On the other it just sort of irritated me for all the years since that I never got a chance to try it. Hence suddenly I have a strong yen to see what a slow-cooker does.

[JoNorvelleWalker]

1 hour ago, Katie Meadow said:

I am paying close attention to this thread. I don't own a pressure cooker or a slow cooker or an IP, but I am toying with the idea of getting SOMETHING. I'm leaning toward a simple slow cooker such as the Hamilton Beach Set n Forget. One thing I always find surprising is the number of comments from users who tout the fact that they can't smell what's cooking in any of these machines. I like the smell of the foods I cook permeating the kitchen and beyond.

 

Cooking things quickly is not a priority for me; I'm home a lot during the day. I don't intend to make yogurt in my lifetime. I'm very happy with the rice I cook in a pan. I am not fond of oven braising, not that the food doesn't turn out wonderfully, but I find my Le Creuset takes a beating when it spends hours in the oven. Plus I find it a pain to check on the progress. 

 

One concern I have is temperature control. I have pretty good control with my Viking range and can get a very small flame for maintaining a low simmer to make stocks or cook beans. I most likely would not use a slow-cooker for stocks anyway, since I have a stock pot that is bigger than any slow cooker I would buy. Are most slow cookers able to do a very low simmer? Are there any that can be controlled with more precision that just "low, medium, high"?

 

It is possible that my real reason for getting a slow cooker is absurd. Several years ago I discovered a never-used in original box Crock Pot. You know those old brown and yellow colored objects that everyone in the sixties had? During the late sixties and early seventies I lived in New Mexico and every family seemed to have one of those for beans or pozole. The fact that I came across this pristine artifact in my own basement and had no idea where it came from was enchanting and made me so nostalgic. I brought it up to the kitchen and took it out of the box and promptly dropped it on the tile floor! So much for ceramic. On the one hand the whole episode was hilarious. How could such an accident NOT happen? On the other it just sort of irritated me for all the years since that I never got a chance to try it. Hence suddenly I have a strong yen to see what a slow-cooker does.

 

Sadly the smells you smell are flavors that are no longer in your food.

 

The Kitchenaid Precise Heat Mixing Bowl has, duh, precise heat to one degree but it holds only 3.5 quarts.  I do "low and slow" primarily either in the oven, the CSO, or SV. 

 

My experience with crock pots is the food tastes like plastic.  Your mileage may vary.

 

[gfweb]

The single advantage of a crock pot is its  cheap. But the low temp on them tends to be too high...over 200 perhaps by a lot. And that is neither low nor slow.  

 

Not even good for a hot dip, e.g. queso, because it's too hot and scorches it. 

 

I suppose you could make soup in it. 

[dcarch]

2 hours ago, Katie Meadow said:

I am paying close attention to this thread. I don't own a pressure cooker or a slow cooker or an IP,

 

Pressure cooking and slow cooking are not interchangeable. They are for different recipes. Just like deep frying is not the same as steaming.

 

One thing I always find surprising is the number of comments from users who tout the fact that they can't smell what's cooking in any of these machines. I like the smell of the foods I cook permeating the kitchen and beyond.

 

The aroma that fills the whole house is the aroma no longer in your food.

(edit: We were posting at the same time, JoNorvelleWalker )

 

44 minutes ago, gfweb said:

The single advantage of a crock pot is its  cheap. But the low temp on them tends to be too high...over 200 perhaps by a lot. And that is neither low nor slow.  

 

I think you know what a router speed controller (PWM voltage controller) is. (You are the one who knew what a gear puller is, if I remember correctly ). Plug an electric pot/cooker into a router speed controller ($20.00) and you can control temperature from 0 watts to full watts.

dcarch

Edited October 14, 2017 by dcarch (log)

[gfweb]

12 minutes ago, dcarch said:

 

I think you know what a router speed controller (PWM voltage controller) is. (You are the one who knew what a gear puller is, if I remember correctly ). Plug an electric pot/cooker into a router speed controller ($20.00) and you can control temperature from 0 watts to full watts.

dcarch

 

 

LOL, sure.  But that isn't a crock pot anymore when you fix the crappy temp control. 

[weedy]

5 hours ago, KennethT said:

Braising in a hotter oven brings no advantage because the braising liquid can't get hotter than 212F.  ...

 

 

well... the WATER part of the liquid can't get hotter than 212F and remain liquid...but oil can

Edited October 14, 2017 by weedy (log)

[boilsover]

2 minutes ago, weedy said:

well... the WATER part of the liquid can't get hotter than 212F and remain liquid...but oil can

 

Not until the water is gone.  Then it's poaching or frying, no?

[rotuts]

A lot of smart people  on eG Id say.

 

@Katie Meadow 

 

if you are going for a crock-pot like device 

 

based on the aroma's you favor  , 

 

and I completely understand why a Roast Turkey Dinner  baked in the oven is a completely different experience

 

than each item on the final plate being made separately but with maximum final taste in mind

 

ie SV meat , Combi-Oven'd stuffing ,  iPot'd squash  or Combi-Oven squash   etc

 

and that's hours of aroma filling the house.

 

why not consider a PID'd  induction cook-top for that Le Creuse pot ?

 

it would be easy to check the pot from time to time.

 

you might get any temp you'd like as long as the pot is ' magnetic '

 

take a look here :

 

 

 

Ive pre-ordered one and am hopeful it lives up to my expectations as being  much better

 

item than my current 

 

Max Burton 6200 Maxi-Matic Deluxe 1800-Watt Induction Cooktop

 

Edited October 14, 2017 by Smithy
Adjusted link to be Amazon-friendly (log)

[Anna N]

9 hours ago, JoNorvelleWalker said:

My experience with crock pots is the food tastes like plastic.  Your mileage may vary.

I am with you. Nothing I ever cooked in any of the slow cookers I ever had was  worth eating. 

[boilsover]

4 hours ago, Anna N said:

I am with you. Nothing I ever cooked in any of the slow cookers I ever had was  worth eating. 

 

Au contraire.  For those in legalized states, slow cookers make excellent cannabutter.  Just sayin'...

[BeatriceB]

I really don't like to be a contrarian, especially in this knowledgeable company, but I like my slow cooker (though I've never tried cannabutter ). Mine has an anodized aluminum insert, rather than ceramic, so you can brown meat and so forth on the stove first. I think the key (for me) is that I use it as a kind of time-shifter, rather than a time-saver. I brown the meat, cook the mirepoix, deglaze the pot, etc. just as I would for an oven braise. It is useful when I can't be available for those 3 hours or so that an oven braise needs. I put the slow cooker on low and walk away for 6-8 hours. When it is done, I remove the solids, strain the liquid, and then reduce it on the stove, as the slow cooker doesn't evaporate liquids the way an oven braise does. This results in a stew, ropa vieja, whatever floats your boat, that seems to me just as good as the braised item. It doesn't cut down on labor, but it does allow you to adapt it to your schedule.

[boilsover]

3 minutes ago, BeatriceB said:

I really don't like to be a contrarian, especially in this knowledgeable company, but I like my slow cooker (though I've never tried cannabutter ). Mine has an anodized aluminum insert, rather than ceramic, so you can brown meat and so forth on the stove first. I think the key (for me) is that I use it as a kind of time-shifter, rather than a time-saver. I brown the meat, cook the mirepoix, deglaze the pot, etc. just as I would for an oven braise. It is useful when I can't be available for those 3 hours or so that an oven braise needs. I put the slow cooker on low and walk away for 6-8 hours. When it is done, I remove the solids, strain the liquid, and then reduce it on the stove, as the slow cooker doesn't evaporate liquids the way an oven braise does. This results in a stew, ropa vieja, whatever floats your boat, that seems to me just as good as the braised item. It doesn't cut down on labor, but it does allow you to adapt it to your schedule.

 

This is a very viable theory.  Unfortunately, (a) most SC owners do not use them this way; and (b) the temperature settings on the vast majority of SCs are too high (set that way for liability reasons).  If you look up your model and investigate, I think you'll be shocked at how high "Low" is.

[Katie Meadow]

Wow, I'm beginning to think I should just keep doing whatever it is I'm doing. An awful lot of good cooking can be had with a Viking range and one Le Creuset pot. I'll just have to cling to my remorse over the broken Crock Pot like Ahab and his missing leg. Truthfully the "relic" aspect and the mysterious provenance were a big part of the draw. Damn! 

 

However, the induction cooktop has given me a great idea. For years I've been complaining about the crappy teeny-flame stove at my in-laws' beach house. It's so slow to heat up a pot of water that I long ago abandoned the idea of having spaghetti when we go out there. At Thanksgiving I have to remind my nephew to start water boiling for his mashed potatoes about an hour before actually cooking them (yes, we're talking a lot of potatoes.) None of the many family members want to spend the bucks on a new range/oven, so this might just be a solution. 

 

[boilsover]

12 minutes ago, Katie Meadow said:

However, the induction cooktop has given me a great idea.

 

Well, induction is advantageous for water boiling and (in better models) at extremely low-temp cooking, that is certain.  But it doesn't save much energy, and has its own drawbacks.  If cooking on glass and not being able to use all pan constructions don't bother you, you might be happy.  Their longevity has also been an issue.

 

What I recommend is that people first buy an induction hotplate to see if they like the fly-by-instrument feel.  That way, even if you decide against an induction cooktop, you have a portable speed demon boiler to take to the in-laws' cabin.

[rotuts]

induction cooking  saves energy  

 

that's for certain.

 

how much is open to analysis .

 

the induction surface doesn't heat up , and transfers more energy to the pot by far than any other method.

 

the now hot pot can transfer energy back to the induction glass surface , but little energy moves through the glass to the surounding

 

induction top.  glass is an insulator.  not the best , but decent.

 

the issue is fine control of the  temperature of the pot and  durability of the electrical components and possible noise of the magnets  

Edited October 14, 2017 by rotuts (log)

[chromedome]

1 hour ago, boilsover said:

 

This is a very viable theory.  Unfortunately, (a) most SC owners do not use them this way; and (b) the temperature settings on the vast majority of SCs are too high (set that way for liability reasons).  If you look up your model and investigate, I think you'll be shocked at how high "Low" is.

I've "hacked" mine and my daughter's through the simple expedient of cutting a wire coathanger and shaping it to fit the inside of the slow cooker. The "crock" sits on top, and it cools down the cooking temperature to something a bit more reasonable. 

[JAZ]

18 hours ago, Katie Meadow said:

One concern I have is temperature control. I have pretty good control with my Viking range and can get a very small flame for maintaining a low simmer to make stocks or cook beans. I most likely would not use a slow-cooker for stocks anyway, since I have a stock pot that is bigger than any slow cooker I would buy. Are most slow cookers able to do a very low simmer? Are there any that can be controlled with more precision that just "low, medium, high"?

 

I found this article by Kenji over at Serious Eats to be very interesting. I'm a convert to doing stock in the pressure cooker. While I can't make a large volume at a time, it's fast, I don't have to skim, and I think it's better than conventional method stock. 

[rotuts]

@JAZ

 

very nice ref  

 

I appreciate it.

 

For me  three things changed how I cook 

 

a quality SV system  i.e. an oil pump as I do a lot of SV

 

a Combi-Oven  currently the CSB(O)

 

and an iPot   mostly for pressure steaming , but now also for stocks and home made soup

 

push a button or two l, keeping track , and your can then do something else while the iPot does its sutff

 

unattended

[boilsover]

4 hours ago, rotuts said:

induction cooking  saves energy

 

Not according to the most recent DOE analysis.