Hacker News Reader

Comment by SoftwareMaven | Hacker News Reader

I'm dubious about searing it twice; it's something I've never seen mentioned in the reading I've done on slow, temperature-controled cooking. It seems like it would just dry out the edges, making them leathery; however, I'm willing to be educated otherwise in the effort to make a great steak.

View on HN

The pre-sear (which can be lighter than the post-sear) adds flavor, but also makes the (important) post-sear much faster, which also minimizes the degree to which the post-sear will raise the interior temperature of your protein.

The pre-sear is especially important with long cooks, because it kills surface bacteria. The first time you get too much lactobacillus hitching a ride on your short ribs will be the last time you skip out on the pre-sear. (Lacto isn't dangerous; after all, the protein is pasteurized in the bath, but the final product will smell awful).

I'm not sure what you mean by "drying out the edges, making them leathery". I think I can just say "no" on that.

The lacto explosion is way more likely to happen when your meat is grossly under-seasoned going into the bag. Which is probably the most made mistake by home cooks.

I cooked in New York City during the years that sous-vide became legal. I worked at the restaurant that received the first sous-vide permit from the health department, and later at other Michelin starred restaurants that did sous-vide. That of course doesn't give me authority, but I do have a perspective on what the best professionals do.

For meat, salt aggressively going into the bag, and lightly coming out of the bag. Sear once :-)

(As an aside, since I'm already talking to you. You're one of my favorite commenters here on HN, and one of the reasons I don't skip the comments section entirely.)

The flavor of my steaks shot up once I learned to put more salt on. In general, once I learned the reality of salt (eg there is no reason to limit consumption), my cooking got much better.

> In general, once I learned the reality of salt (eg there is no reason to limit consumption)…

This caught my attention because I may have mild hypertension and am starting to be more conscious of my diet. Would you happen to have a source that I could start from?

This[1] is a good place for high level, but it won't help you individually. Sodium only has the ability to impact blood pressure by 2-3mmHg diastolic and 5mmHg systolic, so limiting its of very little value for most[2].

My own personal experience reducing my creeping blood pressure came not from curing salt but from curing carbs. When carbs are reduced, the kidneys begin functioning better, reducing fluid in the blood which reduces blood pressure far more successfully than curing salt. This is just one of the many positive metabolic effects of low carb, high fat diets that are very well documented in scientific literature (others include normalized blood sugars, reduced inflammation, reduced liver and visceral fat, improved blood lipids, weight regulation and improved insulin sensitivity).

1. http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Sodium-Intake-in-Populations...

2. Individuals vary. This is not medical advice. See a physician. Yada yada.

That's a great start. I've been reducing my carb intake as well, but I probably need to throw a bit of cardiovascular exercise into the mix before I can see results.

Thanks!

My understanding was that the latest research showed that some folks are quite sensitive to salt, and that a low sodium diet is critical to their health. But that most folks are not, and there isn't a benefit to a low sodium diet for them.

I couldn't jog the citations back into my memory, but I may have another try after a bit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com