![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was looking for something different for amusement on Youtube yesterday and ran across one of those "you're doing it wrong" videos. Those are frequently silly and sometimes annoying bits of trivia about how you could do things differently, though mostly not actually better. The one that sticks in my mind was one that insisted you should squeeze open your bananas from the blossom end instead of breaking them open from the stalk end like virtually everyone does. In that instance you'd be a tiny bit less wasteful sometimes, because a little of the banana fruit does tend to stick on the spike in the the blossom end, though not always. But the kicker is I don't really like mashed or bruised banana, and for me the chance of damaging the fruit end is a lot worse than the tiny bit of waste. Personal preference doesn't mean you are doing it wrong.
Anyway, the video I saw yesterday had to do with preparing and eating steak. I can't tell you what the gist of it was because after a minute I quit watching. For my tastes the 'chief' who was trying to show how people were doing it wrong was doing it wrong himself!
I haven't been to a steak house in a while, mostly because of the price of beef. But in years past the size of a steak on normal menus varied from 6 oz to 22 oz (170g to 625g), with 22 oz steaks being both very expensive and too big for the average guy to eat for a normal meal. Yeah, I've eaten two 12 oz steaks in an afternoon barbecue, but those lasted several hours and were nothing like sit-down meals. I make steaks for myself, but normally they are no bigger than 8 oz. because that's as much I'd want to have.
You hear a lot of talk in movies from somebody who has been on a grueling adventure wanting a big thick steak when they get back to civilization. The guy in the video was showing great big, thick slabs of meat to a normal sized woman. Which is why I turned the video off. For my money there is no such thing as a two-inch thick steak. Even if you like your steak like that, it's a rare normal-sized woman who'd eat a 16 oz (450 gram) steak in one sitting in public. If you can't eat it in one sitting you are just wasting steak in my book. Fancy restaurants that insist on serving enormous fat steaks aren't doing anyone any favors, as far as I'm concerned.
The thing is that for me you can divide beef into three categories. You've got beef that makes good roast; chuck, beef tenderloin, prime rib. You've got beef that is only fit for stewing long and slow in liquid; flank steak, London broil, brisket; basically nasty pieces of meat with nice names that can be cooked till edible. Then you've got cuts that are good for steaks; round steak, sirloin, T-bone (and it's parts, the New York Strip and the fillet mignon), Porterhouse. There is some overlap. Fillet mignon is basically beef tenderloin cut cross wise instead of roasted whole. A lot of people wouldn't consider a round steak a good steak. My mother used to beat the heck out of it with a claw hammer to get it tender. But I love the taste of it.
For me a steak has to be cooked one side at a time. Somehow roasting completely changes the flavor. The same thing happens when you reheat a steak. If you don't eat it all at once the leftovers are just roast beef for me. So getting a doggy bag from your too big steak is self-defeating. Why do restaurants that cut their steaks too thick sell lots of prime rib, even though prime rib just makes so-so steaks? Because prime rib makes really good roast beef! Prime rib also tastes good nearly raw. The same customer who'd send back a New York strip that was too rare would likely keep eating a piece of prime rib cooked the same way. The only way to get a two inch thick steak anything but raw on the inside is to sear the outside and then stick it in the oven and roast it till it's warm on the inside. I don't want to pay steak prices for roast. I suspect I'm not the only one, because restaurants with thick steaks frequently don't roast them. Believe me I've had steak at steak houses that thought they were hot stuff, that served two-inch steak they claimed to be medium-rare with the center both raw and cold. Nasty! Your mileage may vary.
I have to say the worst steak I've had was not due to it being too thick. I haven't heard it recently, but it used to be you'd hear Texans (latter day, wanna-be cowboys) on TV talking about burning a steak to their taste. It's not just an expression. At the end of a very pleasant multi-family vacation together, my uncle offered to barbecue steaks for us (five middle-aged adults plus his daughter and me, both of us in our late teens). His favorite way of cooking steak was to "burn 'em." We were each given a piece of meat that was burnt to ash on the outside and cold and raw on the inside, not because they were too thick, but because that's the way he cooked steak. I would have eaten it and kept quiet about it, but I was feeling slightly off for other reasons. I felt like I was insulting my uncle by not eating it. But I just couldn't. About half way through, I had to excuse myself and be sick in the bathroom.
Anyway, the video I saw yesterday had to do with preparing and eating steak. I can't tell you what the gist of it was because after a minute I quit watching. For my tastes the 'chief' who was trying to show how people were doing it wrong was doing it wrong himself!
I haven't been to a steak house in a while, mostly because of the price of beef. But in years past the size of a steak on normal menus varied from 6 oz to 22 oz (170g to 625g), with 22 oz steaks being both very expensive and too big for the average guy to eat for a normal meal. Yeah, I've eaten two 12 oz steaks in an afternoon barbecue, but those lasted several hours and were nothing like sit-down meals. I make steaks for myself, but normally they are no bigger than 8 oz. because that's as much I'd want to have.
You hear a lot of talk in movies from somebody who has been on a grueling adventure wanting a big thick steak when they get back to civilization. The guy in the video was showing great big, thick slabs of meat to a normal sized woman. Which is why I turned the video off. For my money there is no such thing as a two-inch thick steak. Even if you like your steak like that, it's a rare normal-sized woman who'd eat a 16 oz (450 gram) steak in one sitting in public. If you can't eat it in one sitting you are just wasting steak in my book. Fancy restaurants that insist on serving enormous fat steaks aren't doing anyone any favors, as far as I'm concerned.
The thing is that for me you can divide beef into three categories. You've got beef that makes good roast; chuck, beef tenderloin, prime rib. You've got beef that is only fit for stewing long and slow in liquid; flank steak, London broil, brisket; basically nasty pieces of meat with nice names that can be cooked till edible. Then you've got cuts that are good for steaks; round steak, sirloin, T-bone (and it's parts, the New York Strip and the fillet mignon), Porterhouse. There is some overlap. Fillet mignon is basically beef tenderloin cut cross wise instead of roasted whole. A lot of people wouldn't consider a round steak a good steak. My mother used to beat the heck out of it with a claw hammer to get it tender. But I love the taste of it.
For me a steak has to be cooked one side at a time. Somehow roasting completely changes the flavor. The same thing happens when you reheat a steak. If you don't eat it all at once the leftovers are just roast beef for me. So getting a doggy bag from your too big steak is self-defeating. Why do restaurants that cut their steaks too thick sell lots of prime rib, even though prime rib just makes so-so steaks? Because prime rib makes really good roast beef! Prime rib also tastes good nearly raw. The same customer who'd send back a New York strip that was too rare would likely keep eating a piece of prime rib cooked the same way. The only way to get a two inch thick steak anything but raw on the inside is to sear the outside and then stick it in the oven and roast it till it's warm on the inside. I don't want to pay steak prices for roast. I suspect I'm not the only one, because restaurants with thick steaks frequently don't roast them. Believe me I've had steak at steak houses that thought they were hot stuff, that served two-inch steak they claimed to be medium-rare with the center both raw and cold. Nasty! Your mileage may vary.
I have to say the worst steak I've had was not due to it being too thick. I haven't heard it recently, but it used to be you'd hear Texans (latter day, wanna-be cowboys) on TV talking about burning a steak to their taste. It's not just an expression. At the end of a very pleasant multi-family vacation together, my uncle offered to barbecue steaks for us (five middle-aged adults plus his daughter and me, both of us in our late teens). His favorite way of cooking steak was to "burn 'em." We were each given a piece of meat that was burnt to ash on the outside and cold and raw on the inside, not because they were too thick, but because that's the way he cooked steak. I would have eaten it and kept quiet about it, but I was feeling slightly off for other reasons. I felt like I was insulting my uncle by not eating it. But I just couldn't. About half way through, I had to excuse myself and be sick in the bathroom.