3 ms·

Yeah I just clicked through and realized I've read that article several times over the years. It's old and quite well known in certain parts of the food world.

Yeah I just clicked through and realized I've read that article several times over the years. It's old and quite well known in certain parts of the food world. Now that I know that, is there anything new in this serious eats one? Is it just a verification of the meathead OG?

tptacek 1y ago
It's kind of a counterpoint to it! Meathead actively advocates against resting; Gritzer argues for a cooking method that relies on carryover time and thus resting to slice at target temps. Both Meathead and Gritzer agree that moisture retention is not the reason to rest, and since there's a lot of pop science out there (complete with animations and physical models) for why moisture loss demands resting, it seems worth writing about. Gritzer actually ran a relatively serious tasting experiment for this article, though I'm not sure how much it mattered to the point he's making.
pitpatagain 1y ago
It is not. Much of the SE article is about testing a newer hypothesis that the amount of juice loss on slicing is entirely explained by the temp of the meat at the moment of slicing, and that the various other explanations for what resting does are irrelevant. The meathead article argues: - Resting doesn't change perceived juiciness the way you think it does. - Meat that you will slice on your plate continues cooking on plate. - Therefore recommends just cook to temp and dive in and don't do any traditional rest. The Serious Eats article: - Tests the temp at slicing theory. - Says this means that appropriate resting time only has to do with aligning the carryover cook time with the temp you brought it to while cooking with the temp it will be at slicing - Suggests that the real benefit of resting is that it is easier to time and stick the landing with desired temp because of the gradual glide at the end - Therefore recommends: Using a rest, but shorter than traditional, just long enough as appropriate for temp control.

tptacek 1y ago

It's kind of a counterpoint to it! Meathead actively advocates against resting; Gritzer argues for a cooking method that relies on carryover time and thus resting to slice at target temps. Both Meathead and Gritzer agree that moisture retention is not the reason to rest, and since there's a lot of pop science out there (complete with animations and physical models) for why moisture loss demands resting, it seems worth writing about. Gritzer actually ran a relatively serious tasting experiment for this article, though I'm not sure how much it mattered to the point he's making.

pitpatagain 1y ago

It is not. Much of the SE article is about testing a newer hypothesis that the amount of juice loss on slicing is entirely explained by the temp of the meat at the moment of slicing, and that the various other explanations for what resting does are irrelevant. The meathead article argues: - Resting doesn't change perceived juiciness the way you think it does. - Meat that you will slice on your plate continues cooking on plate. - Therefore recommends just cook to temp and dive in and don't do any traditional rest. The Serious Eats article: - Tests the temp at slicing theory. - Says this means that appropriate resting time only has to do with aligning the carryover cook time with the temp you brought it to while cooking with the temp it will be at slicing - Suggests that the real benefit of resting is that it is easier to time and stick the landing with desired temp because of the gradual glide at the end - Therefore recommends: Using a rest, but shorter than traditional, just long enough as appropriate for temp control.