My Scallops were Awesome but the Steak was rare...Follow

Funny how I originally wrote my post with links to sites containing historical references to doneness terminology, complete with quotes from sources speaking about temperatures for different levels at different dates in history *and* to sites with charts with temperatures used currently for doneness levels. The one thing that became abundantly clear while reading this stuff was that the older references were all over the map in terms of the relation between temperature and doneness. Given that my statement didn't actually disagree with your own on this (you also included multiple historical references that varied wildly) and I was going in the direction of "who cares, since those terms are used very consistently today, I decided there was no value to adding the links.


Unless you're arguing that there is significant disagreement and variation among chefs *today* regarding temperature and corresponding doneness? If not, then what's your point? I'm not disagreeing with your stated facts. I'm disagreeing that this is relevant in terms of determining what is meant by "medium rare" today.




Actually, on that one I have to disagree though. You even made a more correct point earlier. The top end of the scale hasn't changed, but the bottom has (depending on which source you're using). Love of cooking (1936 version) puts the range between rare and well in the 140 to 170 temperature range. Modern doneness charts put that range between 130 and 170 (actually, that one only goes to medium well, which should speak volumes about not cooking meat that hot). What's happened is that as meat production has become safer and eating grilled steak directly (as opposed to putting meats into other dishes, roasting, braising, etc) has become more common, a greater appreciation for the range of lower temperature cooked meat has risen. So 80 years ago, the range was 140=rare, 160=medium, 170=well, now it's 130=rare, 135=medium rare, 145=medium, 160=medium well (and 170 is presumably still "well" if you can even find someone to cook it that way anymore).

The total range of the temperatures has widened by 10 degrees at the bottom end, but we've compressed the well end and stretched the rare end. This is a reflection of the modern reality that only a small number of people eat steaks cooked anywhere near 160 degrees, but a whole lot of people eat them between 130 and 145. So it makes more sense to place more labels in between the ranges most people want their steak cooked to. Point being that if you ordered a steak cooked to 170 degrees back then, it was well done back then and it's well done today (medium isn't in the picture). If you'd ordered a medium steak back then, you'd get something we'd call medium well today (but we're still talking about 160 degrees). The biggest difference is that the bottom range has changed. Rare was the lowest temperature you'd likely get a steak cooked at the time. Back then, it was 140 (what we'd call on the medium side of medium rare), while today it's 10 degrees cooler.

You'd have a point if you'd said that ordering a rare back then would result in something quite different from a rare today.

This, btw, is the stuff I decided wasn't really relevant to the point I was making. I'll ask again. Why does this matter? Are you planning on traveling back in time in order to get confused about what exactly a medium cooked steak is? Or are you somehow stuck on the label? I guess I don't get it. None of what you're saying in any way refutes the original statement I made and you quoted. You are still wasting your money asking for a ribeye or strip steak cooked medium well or well. You're cooking it to 160 degrees or hotter, which is going to make the steak lose most of its tenderness and flavor. It would have done so just as much back in the 1930s too. Difference is (as I already pointed out), meat cooking was more about cooking completely to kill bacteria, and they rarely just served the meat without additional preparations, sauces, etc.



Keep telling yourself that. Not sure who you think you're going to convince here. Frankly, I'm not even sure what your point is. Regardless of what you call it, you like your steaks cooked at a temperature way beyond what most people enjoy. That's fine, I guess, but it's like you're trying to blame label changes on this or something. What does one have to do with the other? Doesn't make a lick of sense.

Edited, Oct 1st 2012 7:27pm by gbaji

Great! How do you like your steak? And what/who influenced you to eat steak?



The massive discrepancy represented by sales of steak sauce (mostly marketed to home eaters) and to how steaks are actually prepared in restaurants. Think about it. Most meat prepared in the home is not grilled. It's cooked in a sauce, or a stew, or roasted, or braised. And most of it's made using less tender cuts of meat *and* is cooked using these other methods specifically to add flavor and tenderness to the result. While home grills are much more common than they were when I was a kid, most people's experience eating meat is eating meat that is cooked uniformly and all the way through. The tendency when cooking steak is to do the same. This is why people buy A1 steak sauce. It's pretty much the only reason to do so. Most parents aren't buying their kids ribeye steak and grilling it (although I know some awesome parents who do). Most are buying a cheaper cut and cooking it in a skillet, just like mom did. And it's coming out somewhere near medium well most of the time.

So most people's experience with steak growing up is with a tough hunk of meat sitting next to a pile of peas and some mashed potatoes. They slather A1 on them, saw through them with a knife, and chew them until they can finally swallow them. And they convince themselves that this is what steak is supposed to taste like because it's a treat to even get that and it's all they know. Most of those people, at some point will go to an actual restaurant and order a steak. And when the steak comes, it's this glorious thing that tastes and feels like something they never knew that steak could taste like. And that is why restaurants undercook the steak relative to what people order. And most people will appreciate this. They may not know why the steak in the restaurant tastes so much better than mom used to make, but they know that it does. Many of them will endeavor to find out and will discover that there are ways to make their steak tasted that good as well. And most of them do this. Because it's delicious.


Some, unfortunately, continue to cling to their childhood memories of what steak is supposed to be. They insist that that is "better". And the more people try to convince them otherwise, the more steadfastly they cling to their delusion. Maybe they just don't want to accept that mom didn't cook steak very well. Maybe they've been claiming they love well done steak so long that their pride prevents them from changing for fear of it being perceived as an admission that they were wrong. Perhaps they just can't bear the thought that they'd have to acknowledge that they've wasted so many years of their lives eating terrible tasting steak, so they grimly continue with the charade. I don't know. But what I do know is that we should pity those poor souls.




Sure. But people will tend to continue to pay to go to a restaurant if the experience is positive. The restaurant knows that for the overwhelming majority of customers who order a steak, they will enjoy it most if it's cooked medium rare, regardless of what they actually call it when they order. As a couple people have pointed out, it's a calculation. If they're right, the person will enjoy the medium rare steak. If they're wrong, the can always cook it more.


The people who cook steak professionally *are* experts. That they do this pretty much universally should tell you all you need to know about the issue. Clearly, more people appreciate the medium rare steak they are served than get upset at having to send their undercooked steak back to be cooked as they requested it. I don't think it's unreasonable to look at that an conclude that they really do kinda know better what their customers will enjoy when it comes to steak than the customers themselves. If it wasn't true, they wouldn't do this.

The take away here is that Gbaji is pathologically insecure about his steak and wants everyone to validate how he eats it in the best possible way and anyone deviating from it must suffer childhood trauma or be using steak sauce as a substitute for their mothers love.

I don't want to say "projection" but I'm not sure if that mindset just comes up out from under the rocks on its own.

A steak ønce bit his sister.

Edited, Oct 2nd 2012 2:38pm by Spoonless

They're just jealous of your big, fat alphabet.