Is Sous Vide "Real Cooking"?

[MarketStEl]

At one time the Crock Pot was a new-fangled device.  So were electric and gas ranges.  Every new technique has a starting point somewhere.  The foodies need to catch up with the lab geeks on this one...

←

However: I don't think the Crock-Pot cost all that much when Rival Manufacturing Company (another fine Kansas City firm swallowed up by some global conglomerate) introduced it in the late 1960s. It was certainly easy to find at the local Kmart or catalog showroom.

A comment for Bryan: If you've read enough of my posts on eG, you should have picked up by now that I'm very price-conscious--cheap, some would call me. I will agree that there are times when you really must spend the money to do things right--the $90-plus I spent on a quality chef's knife is the best investment I've ever made in the kitchen--but I tend to be skeptical of anything that says that you can't do it at all without spending a heap o' money. That cheap kitchen knife will slice the veggies, just not as quickly or easily, and you will have to sharpen it much more often.

If I understand sous vide correctly, all it is is cooking food in vacuum-sealed pouches in a bath of very warm, but not boiling, water. You won't get the precise temperature control or ability to vary it with a Crock-Pot that you would with jsolomon's admittedly inexpensive setup (his cost of materials is about the same as what you would spend on a Crock-Pot), but you will have the basic ability to heat the water somewhere below boiling and keep it there. You may not get as long-lasting a vacuum seal with a Seal-a-Meal as you would with a higher-quality vacuum sealer, but you will get one.

What got me was the implication in doc's post that sous vide requires all that expense. Unless I've got the physics of the method all wrong, it seems to me that it doesn't, at least not at the outset.

[coquus]

Well, I guess I'm not alone since this got split off topic, which is cool, so I'll elaborate. Now it's great that you can cook a single serving of meat in twenty minutes at 50. . .whoa, when did we move to Japan here, 122F, and I can see where this would help you with control in volume, but, in my opinion, for the average chef it's trendy, it is cumbersome, and it lacks in perceived value. I can kind of see how WAWA/7Eleven/The Olive Garden can benefit, but is this really the future of cooking, or is it Food Saver trying to grab greater market share? The microwave oven still kicks it's ass as far as the last thirty years is concerned, in WaWa's book anyway.

[pounce]

Take a look at a recent thread from someone with your same or similar take on sous vide.

Sous Vide..., What's the appeal?

[philadining]

BTW, twodogs, that fish looks great!!

I'm not trying to question anyone's credentials, but I really have to wonder if the folks that are criticizing sous-vide have tasted the results of a really refined application of the technique? I haven't been seeking it out, but have been lucky enough to encounter it at a few very fine places, including Per Se, WD-50 and Studio Kitchen, none of which is using it as a marketing gimmick, they won't get any more or fewer customers by saying they're cooking things sous vide. They're using it to achieve an effect unattainable otherwise.

As Vadouvan noted upthread, it's just a technique, it doesn't inherently create good or bad results. Wawas and cafeterias and airlines and other industrial food service organizations might use it for the sake of efficiency and ease, but that doesn't really put it in the same category as a microwave, I haven't found any foods that are actually improved by being put in a microwave... But when used in very specific ways, sous vide can result in amazingly tender textures and concentrated flavors, that bear no resemblance to mere boil-in-bag reheating.

I'm not sure this communicates the point as well as it should, but here's a picture of a lamb loin I had at StudioKitchen:

It was just amazing how it was exactly the same degree of medium rare from the edge to the center, except for a slight ring around the outside where it was seared, for an added dimension of flavor. It was tender, juicy, with an especially intense flavor. You just can't get that same effect on a grill or in an oven. Is it worth the trouble? I thought so, but then I didn't have to cook it, I just ate it.

Sandy, yes you could cook things with a basic foodsaver and a crockpot, but you're unlikely to get quite the same effect: it's the precise control of temps and timing, as well as avoiding air-expansion or leaks during the long cook times, that seem to create the desired results. If you happen to get a good vacuum seal on your product, and happen to have a crockpot that can regulate to a very narrow window of temps, it might work. But the more elaborate water baths and circulators serve a purpose.

In the end, if you don't like the results, or don't think it's worth the trouble, that's fine, but personally, I've been amazed at the transformations of ingredients. In the right hands, it's not simply a tool for efficiency or ease, it can really amplify an ingredient's flavors.

[Shalmanese]

Actually, you can. Just put a roast in the oven set at 65C for 12 hours and you get the exact same effect. Except you can't use marinades.

I'm far more interested in the applications of sous vide on the low end rather than the high end. To me, the main appeal of it is that you can pop a few meals in your home sous vide machine in the morning, return home and have dinner on the table in 5 minutes.

[docsconz]

To say one doesn't like the technique, because "it's not real cooking" is certainly a matter of opinion and difficult to argue with on that basis. I would have to agree to disagree with anyone convinced of that. As for being "trendy", perhaps, but only because the results are so good for so many things. "Cumbersome?" There is more equipment, and while there might not be room enough in the average home kitchen, this does not appear to be a problem for the chefs who have taken to it. "Lacking in perceived value?" The value perceived or not is meat consistently cooked to the right temperature with great consistency and fabulous added flavor potential. What is not "valuable" about that?

[ChefCrash]

For variety, in a restaurant I owned, we served BBQ ribs and chicken among the usual items, twice a week on the dinner buffet.

Ten slabs of spare ribs at a time were boiled in water and liquid smoke for an hour then dunked in 'Open Pit Restaurant Recipe' and served. The chicken leg quarters were deep fried before getting the same bath in the same sauce.

We went through 80-120 lbs of ribs and the same of chicken.

We received nothing but praise from the patrons.

Does that mean slow cooked (smoked) BBQ in a smoker for umpteen hours is a waste of time and resources?

[Vadouvan]

No you cant get the same results.

Roasting meat in the oven at 65 degrees C still results in about 30% moisture loss over sous vide.

You simply cant compare the vaccum with an open chamber cooking method.

That's BS.

The crockpot argument is also absurd. Sous vide in its most precise form with a circulating waterbath cant be duplicated any other way.

The key is the near constant temperature over a long period.

Twodogs shows what is possible if you are creative and know what you are doing.

We could continue having this discussion on if sous vide is the future or whether it is real cooking....

At the end of the day, it comes down to fear and ignorance.

People who are resistant to evolution tend to be the biggest hypocrites because they are advocating doing things the traditional way without haven actually sampled the best results of new methods.

As Philadining said, go to the best places that use it creatively and you may be suprised.

I just wish people wouldnt tell us they have seen the future of cooking when thier heads are stuck in the sand.

[Grub]

Ten slabs of spare ribs at a time were boiled in water and liquid smoke for an hour then dunked in 'Open Pit Restaurant Recipe' and served.

...

We received nothing but praise from the patrons.

Does that mean slow cooked (smoked) BBQ in a smoker for umpteen hours is a waste of time and resources?

←

I think that's a great question. I realize that you might ask the rhetorically, and hold the opinion that slow cooked, smoked BBQ is NOT a waste of time -- but I do think that slow cooked, smoked BBQ COULD be a complete and utter waste of time... If I can get the same result in two hours, of COURSE I'll do that, rather than the 18-hour process! Even if the result isn't quite the same, the tradeoff for a shorter cooking time might still be well worth it.

Imagine a Pepsi challenge -- a blind taste test. Everyone's got different tastes and preferences... Remeber that Iron Chef judge who said the fish was over-cooked -- only she didn't know anything about sous vide... Should your knowledge of the cooking method guide your likes and dislikes? I don't think so. That sounds like hype to me.

And please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand you need some kinda vacuum packing machinery to do this?! Yeah right -- I mean, that's an alarm bell going off right there, dude. I'm thinking, hey, make sure you pick something that matches the color of that fondue set in the back of the cupboard, so they'll look nice together.

Unless Alton Brown shows me how to sous vide shit with ziplock bags and a bicycle pump, I think I'll wait that one out...

Oh, and next time I overcook something, I'll shout that it's sous vide goddamnit, and why don't you fuck off and get a BigMac instead, you blinkered, Philistine pig-ignorant non-culinary garbage!~

[Vadouvan]

There is nothing wrong with vaccum packing, more than 30% of the commercial supermarket food you eat has been vaccum packed at some point.You seem to be looking at things with an overly simplistic approach but also with a deficit of factual information that erodes any point you are trying to make.

Your knowledge of cooking technique doesnt guide what you like, what it guides is its perception of how you recieve a dish and guides you from making statements that show you have no clue what you are talking about. That was the problem with Ms bakhoum.

For example, "the osso buco was overcooked and mushy"

[MarketStEl]

I get your point, Vadouvan. Did you say "circulating"? Can't even approximate that with a Crock-Pot.*

And yes, I do see the distinction between this method and, say, boil-in-bag cooking, which is closer to what's going on at Wawa.

Just as I am well aware of the distinction between parboiled baked ribs covered with barbecue sauce and real barbecue. I'd say that most people aren't that picky--they're not looking for the smoke ring, and if you've got a little liquid smoke flavoring in the sauce, that'll do for many.

But hey, lots of people call parboiling ribs and then nuking them on an open grill or baking them in an oven "barbecue,"** so calling boil-in-bag "sous vide" would fit right in.

*Edited to add: Though a Crock-Pot can maintain a constant temperature over a long period if you leave the lid off. However, that temperature is not variable--it will either be about 140F (IIRC) on Low or 200F on High. And, of course, with the lid on, the pressure and temperature rise will eventually produce boiling on High with a full pot.

*As always, reality gets complicated. I've been known to serve "barbecue chicken breast" that isn't really barbecued, just baked in an oven. But it's covered with barbecue sauce, so... Probably the proper term would be "chicken in barbecue sauce."

Edited January 17, 2006 by MarketStEl (log)

[slkinsey]

In re to the crock pot question, there are really two basic techniques of cooking sous vide:

One technique is the sous vide version of LTLT (Long Time, Low Temperature) cooking. The idea is that you want to take advantage of certain chemical reactions that happen over a long period of time (e.g., conversion of collagen to gelatin) and prevent other reactions from happening by controlling the temperature (e.g., "well done" meat). The meat is vacuum packed and then put in a water bath of other environment in which the temperature can be controlled very precisely. This is for things like beef short ribs at 55C for 36 hours. Only a few degrees can make a big difference. Beef short ribs at 60C for 36 hours will not be anything like the beef short ribs cooked at 55C. This would not be posible with a Crock Pot. It is simply not possible to maintain a sufficiently low temperature with no hot spots, etc. for that langth of time using a Crock Pot. And, of course, as Sandy points out, the temperature is not sufficiently adjustable.

The other sous vide technique is to cook the food for a relatively short period of time to temperature and then serve it. This is typically used for things like fish and other kinds of tender meat that don't benefit from long cooking. This is something you could do in a Crock Pot, but I'm not sure why you'd want to. You can do the same thing using a large stock pot and a thermometer. Since the food is likely to cook for an hour or less if it is sized properly, paying attention to the temperature and adjusting the stove every 10 minutes or so is not a big deal.

In both techniques you get the benefit of substantially lower moisture loss, enhanced effect of herbs and other aromatics, and "same doneness all the way through" that are really not possible through any other technique.

[Vadouvan]

Correct SLkinsey...

Not to get off topic...

I'm sorry but smoked meat from applewood, alder, cherry or mesquite tastes nothing like liquid smoke. We should be resistant to diminishing food to completely artificial ingredients.

Most people after tasting the real thing can taste the difference. This is why good fod cost money.

It always interesting to see the faces of people who have eaten in lame japanese restaurants all the time and had things as simple as miso soups made with, Hondashi,Dashi no moto or shiro dashi.

Its quite a revelation when actual Kombu and Bonito is used to make the dashi.

[Shalmanese]

The crockpot argument is also absurd.  Sous vide in its most precise form with a circulating waterbath cant be duplicated any other way.

The key is the near constant temperature over a long period.

←

At the moment, the sous vide community is looking like a lot of amateur and marginal groups, working with scavenge or repurposed gear. Theres nothing inherent about sous vide that requires it to cost so much or require expensive equipment. The japanese have vaccum cookers which can hold in heat remarkably efficiently. In theory, you could do sous vide in one of those without using any heat at all. Augment that with just a simple thermocouple, PID and VERY small heating element and mass produce it and I wager you could get the costs to very close to a crockpot, maybe $20 more. Homebrew sous vide setups using 20W lightbulbs have been built that cost less than $20 all up.

[slkinsey]

Yes, it's definitely true that a reasonably precise circulating water bath could be mass produced and sold for right around the same price as, say, a fancy fuzzy-logic rice cooker. I'm not sure I agree that they could be made for 40 dollars.

Ultimately you're still talking about something like 400 bucks for a home sous vide setup (figure a couple hundred bucks each for a mass-produced circulating water bath and vacuum sealer).

[peteswanson]

I think saying you need no technique is a bit much....I'm sure there wasn't this amount of controversy when knobs were put on ovens to control cooking temps...did people say "these new gadgets just make chefs with no technique...you need to learn to control the fire by feel alone"...I think that is a pretty ridiculous statement...sous vide simply allows more control on the temperature, as a result (but not for everything) the product is cooked perfectly throughout....with the proper equipment, know-how, and trial and error on part of the chef, this is a wonderful new addition to any cooks arsenal.

[docsconz]

That is still only part of the equation. The other part is the vacuum sealer and the plastic bags. Yes, corners can be cut here too, but these cirners can effect the finished product. Space is probably the biggest issue for most home cooks.

[Vadouvan]

This thread keeps getting Hilarious....

A circulating bath for $20 to $40 ????

Tell you what. I will personally hand over $500 to anyone who can produce such a device.

Requirements.

1. Water must circulate.

2. Temperature must be measured in increments of tenths of 1 degree.

3.Bath must be insulated

4. After insertion of product, must be able to maintain the exact temperature of 55.8 degrees for

3 hrs wthout variation of more than 2 degrees at any time.

5. Itemized and verifiable source material cost.

6. For purposes of fairness, I will double your cost lattitude to $80.

let me know when you are done.

[slkinsey]

Yea, that's pretty much my feeling as well. I do think it could probably be done for around 200 bucks if you relax your requirements to accuracy within 1 degree C rather than tenths of a degree C.

[Vadouvan]

No way on relaxing the requirements.

See the theory is ...I just dropped a little over a grand on a Techne water bath a few moons ago and it works brilliantly.

Temp can be adjusted in increments of 0.1 degrees.

I can leave it on for 4 days without any evaporation because they were brilliant enough to make sure the lid condenses the rising steam back into the bath.

SO.....I would like one of these would be Mcgyvers to prove to me that I am a dumbass and i could have spent much less money.

Here is an additional restriction.

7. keep a record of all the time involved in this production much like an attorney's billable hours and multiply by minimum wage and add it to the cost.

Thanks.

Edited January 17, 2006 by Vadouvan (log)

[jsolomon]

This thread keeps getting Hilarious....

A circulating bath for $20 to $40 ????

Tell you what. I will personally hand over $500 to anyone who can produce such a device.

Requirements.

1. Water must circulate.

2. Temperature must be measured in increments of tenths of 1 degree.

3.Bath must be insulated

4. After insertion of product, must be able to maintain the exact temperature of  55.8 degrees for

    3 hrs wthout variation of more than 2 degrees at any time.

5. Itemized and verifiable source material cost.

6. For purposes of fairness, I will double your cost lattitude to $80.

let me know when you are done.

←

Okay, how much do I win when I give you the prototype with COTS parts of said item?

[Vadouvan]

Sorry to keep making this more difficult, but in all fairness, just so nobody burns the house down....

it would be nice if said machine was UL certified.

He he.

[jsolomon]

No way on relaxing the requirements.

See the theory is ...I just dropped a little over a grand on a Techne water bath a few moons ago and it works brilliantly.

Temp can be adjusted in increments of 0.1 degrees.

7. keep a record of all the time involved in this production much like an attorney's billable hours and multiply by minimum wage and add it to the cost.

Thanks.

←

1: I don't work for minimum wage.

2: Temperature being adjusted in increments of 0.1 deg is all well and good, but you're missing slkinsey's finer point of accuracy vs reproducibility. I can guarantee you that for your $1000, you purchased something that you can set to the 0.1 degree, but is only accurate to within 1-2 degrees of your set-point.

[jsolomon]

Sorry to keep making this more difficult, but in all fairness, just so nobody burns the house down....

it would be nice if said machine was UL certified.

He he.

←

UL doesn't certify prototypes, to my knowledge. I can use UL certified parts, but that doesn't make the whole UL certified.

[Vadouvan]

Which proves my ultimate point, I wasnt suggesting you work for minimum wage, my point was even if you factor in the lowest allowable wage (minimum wage), it frankly isnt even worth the invested time to run around and build something that does not work properly.

A lot of people just like to type counterpoints that are invalid just to rebel against established sytem/status quo but when it comes to delivering the goods ???

Fizzles out.

Mty offer still stands.