Brisket - Low and slow vs High Heat method... low & slow wins?


 

DavidT.

TVWBB Member
Hi folks,

Let me preface this post with the following:

* I have NOT performed hundreds of cooks of both style so can only present my experiences and RESEARCH that I have gleaned from the Internet.

* I have no "favourite" between the two methods. My first ever smoke was low and slow and I have since tried hot and fast and various other methods (oven finished, oven started, medium heat medium duration, seared at the start, broiled at the end, foiled low-and-slow, oven wrapped, oven braised, stove-top smoked)

Lately (the past few years), the high heat method has really lifted off, inspiring many non-smokers to give this art a try and many have been blown away by the results and converted into full BBQ-phobes. I am very grateful for this as it proves more BBQ ****, more recipe developers, more testers, and just an overall larger base of knowledge.

However, I recently did a BIG search, primarily using the VWBB, smoke ring, texas bbq rub, smoking meat forums and a few other smaller forums, studying results of brisket smokes using both high heat and low and slow methods. After trawling through thousands of threads, hundreds of which had photos of the results, I have come to the following conclusion:

Low and slow brisket smokes tend to produce juicier LOOKING results.

Some notes:

* Everyone with "successful" high heat cooks alway says it has turned out moist, but they could be saying this just to save face.
* High heat is more susceptable to overcooking due to higher heats and the foiling stage.
* More low and slow cooks have been done, so this may be why there seem to be more juicier LOOKING low and slow cooks - simply because there have been more. However, the proportions of moist LOOKING results from low and slow still seem to beat those of hot and fast.
* If not done properly, hot and fast cooks can result in loss of moisture but not the breaking down of connective tissue/collagen (i.e. cooked fast but not properly)
* Low and slow cooks are more likely to result in both loss of moisture AND proper connective tissue breakdown due to the length of time the meat is held at high enough temperatures.
* (Not so scientific) some say low and slow creates a better bark resulting in less moisture escape thanks to a barrier that is harder to penetrate (softer, cooked meat in high heat VS a hard crust in low and slow)

Anyone have any thoughts? I am obviously expecting uproar from the hot and fast evangelists.

Research sources:

http://tvwbb.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/frm/f/1780069052
http://www.smokingmeatforums.com/forum/list/101
http://www.thesmokering.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=33
http://www.bbq-brethren.com/fo...forumdisplay.php?f=5
http://www.thepickledpig.com/f...eneral-bbq-grilling/
http://www.texasbbqforum.com/viewforum.php?f=2
http://forum.texasbbqrub.com/forumdisplay.php?f=74
http://forum.cookshack.com/eve...s/a/frm/f/2491028883
http://www.barbecuenews.com/fo...orum.asp?FORUM_ID=12
http://www.azbarbeque.com/foru...-us-what-you-cooked/
http://www.eggheadforum.com/in...func=showcat&catid=1
http://www.theqjoint.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36
http://barbecuebible.com/board/viewforum.php?f=2
 
I am obviously expecting uproar from the hot and fast evangelists.

How about from science evangelists? I appreciate the huge effort you put into this, however, from your description, your research is loaded with bias.

If you have any chance of convincing me one way is better than the other, I would need to see equal trials in both group (randomly selected). You need to control for the fact that L/S is the dominant method and I would assume that most brisket posts would be about this method.

And some kind of grading criteria that you can apply without bias. For example: what percent of brisket posts used the word "dry"?

Did you control for whether the briskets were injected or not?

How did you define L/S and HH?

And really that's just the beginning. Once again I applaud you effort but if your goal is to convince someone that one method is superior to another you have a long way to go before you create an uproar.
 
I've only done one HH brisket and it was great. I am not trying to save face by saying it was moist. Our guests also said it. I have done many LS briskets, but I am now a convert to HH cooking. I think you can foul up either cook, if you don't pay attention, but with HH it is quicker....tom
 
Oh wow you did a lot of work on that...

I actually start a discussion like this a few months back....actually might be 4 months or more but anyway I prefer to do L&S but many many people are doing HH now because of the time it takes to do L&S. I guess you would just need to follow the boards and read about those doing HH and many of them put the details of time, temps etc so then give it a go.
 
Low and Slow everything else is just GRILLEN
icon_biggrin.gif


wsmsmile8gm.gif
 
If I cared what my food looked like, I'd be swayed by your argument that low and slow produces juicier-looking brisket. I don't know about you, but I eat with my mouth, not my eyes, and I don't understand why I should care that brisket produced by one method looks wetter than brisket produced by another. You only discuss looks here, and looks are at best secondary.
 
I myself have only cooked my briskets L/S, but have eatin many H/H. Both styles have been delicious. Not long ago we had a small competition amongst friends and the one H/H brisket came in 5th out of 6th. I choose L/S, but again I do like them both.
 
You also need to take into account the grade of the brisket being cooked. There are competition teams that cook "high heat" briskets and win. I doubt that they would win with a dry brisket.
 
If both cooks are done properly the results are great. Iv'e done both and like the HH because of those last minute ideas.
 
Sub-boiling point cooks produce the BEST results in my experience so I agree with you, but I'd go further to say they don't just look more moist, they ARE more moist.

I've done AA briskets from the same case, both not injected, just rubbed, one high heat one at 200ºF and the low 'n slow is so much better than the high heat it's almost like two different cuts of meat.

The sub-boiling point brisket was oozing moisture when sliced, was so moist and fork tender.

They both got foiled around 160ºF and oven finished, the HH at 275ºF, the low 'n slow at 200ºF.

More importantly I've reproduced great results on subsequent sub-boiling point brisket cooks.

HH is fine, like others say especially if time is short, but if I have the time I go low and slow.
 
hh works just fine for me. for one thing i'm unable to do low and slow do to being in a wheel chair. i tried one once and went as far as 15 hours. turned out ok. but since doing hh or medium heat as i cook around the 275 range i saw nor tasted any diffearance. so hh it is for me. i think this whole thing again boils down to personal preferance. to try and say one is better than another does no good for either side.
 
I've done many both ways, but exclusively HH for the past few years.

For me, HH works because of my avoidance of planning, the consistency of results, and my usual lack of time.

I do most of our family cooking, and stopping in Sams at 10:30 am means I can serve a cooked brisket by 5 anytime I am in the mood.

For me, that is priceless.

It's a matter of choice really.
 
For me, HH works because of my avoidance of planning, the consistency of results, and my usual lack of time.

that's really the core. I was a little hung up on the fact that David's research wasn't very definitive. But there is really no best way, as it depends on available time and equipment. I wouldn't cook many briskets if I had to do them for 20+ hrs, and the key to competing is practice. I barely have enough time to practice my comp recipes as is. Add the fact that the wsm runs great for 8-12 hrs then needs some playing to clear the ash and get the fire back.

I don't think any of us that solely cook HH, would swear that its significantly better, we do it out of need (and the fact that the results are darn good).

If we are looking for the best, moistest brisket, then I'd suggest low temp cooking in a temp controlled water bath. Imagine a completely broken down brisket only taken to med rare! no bark, but it will be moist.
 
Originally posted by j biesinger:

How about from science evangelists? I appreciate the huge effort you put into this, however, from your description, your research is loaded with bias.

If you have any chance of convincing me one way is better than the other, I would need to see equal trials in both group (randomly selected). You need to control for the fact that L/S is the dominant method and I would assume that most brisket posts would be about this method.

And some kind of grading criteria that you can apply without bias. For example: what percent of brisket posts used the word "dry"?

Did you control for whether the briskets were injected or not?

How did you define L/S and HH?

And really that's just the beginning. Once again I applaud you effort but if your goal is to convince someone that one method is superior to another you have a long way to go before you create an uproar.

Perhaps the thread title is slightly misleading. As I mentioned, I do both types of cooks so am truly not biased one way or the other.

I completely understand and agree that my post and research did not even closely approach the scientific method, it was meant more as an observation. To further indicate how unscientific it was, dryness was judged by my scrutiny of brisket cook "during" and "after" photos (sliced and/or plated), not by how the meat was described by the actual cook.

Briskets were not injected, I disregarded all of those which had been. L/S and HH were primarily differentiated by L/S being <=250F, with packers taking 10 hours+ and NO foiling.

I must emphasise that I am not trying to convince anyone of anything - merely providing my observations from spending waaaay too much time looking at brisket pr0n
icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by Stuart M.:

If I cared what my food looked like, I'd be swayed by your argument that low and slow produces juicier-looking brisket. I don't know about you, but I eat with my mouth, not my eyes, and I don't understand why I should care that brisket produced by one method looks wetter than brisket produced by another. You only discuss looks here, and looks are at best secondary.

I agree, it is all about the mouthfeel and taste, and as I mentioned, I was basing it purely on looks.

Originally posted by j biesinger:

If we are looking for the best, moistest brisket, then I'd suggest low temp cooking in a temp controlled water bath. Imagine a completely broken down brisket only taken to med rare! no bark, but it will be moist.

I've done that! Cold smoked and cooked sous vide. Medium rare brisket cooked this way (smoked and sous vide) is simply amazing... it obviously is very different without the bark, but as long as you smoke it and give it a good spice rub, it is out of this world!
 
"Low and slow brisket smokes tend to produce juicier LOOKING results."

How do you know some of these (or many) briskets were not brushed with finishing sauce prior to the photos being taken?

For the record, I'm a fan of everything from High Heat to low and slow foiling at 165 to running 17 hours at 210 lid no foil entire cook, just put her on, close her up and take her off 17 hours later. Each has it's place and time for use.
 
As I mentioned, I do both types of cooks so am truly not biased one way or the other.

I hope I didn't imply you were biased either way. What I meant was that your research left a lot of room for bias. Science is a tool for helping one remove the human factor when observing nature. Our brains are easily fooled, especially when looking for patterns in large data sets. Look at enough pieces of toast and one will look like the virgin mary. I was trained in science, so I'm quick to point out errors in experiments (its habit). I have to remind myself that most people don't look at the world scientifically, and that they are ok with that.

The ideal experiment would be something like what Shawn did, where you cook a brisket with each method, try to control as many other variables as possible, and served the briskets blindly.
 
J, I agree with you to a point. The biggest variable is the meat itself. All the external conditions can be "similar" such as smoker,charcoal, method,rub,etc., etc. IMHO, no two pieces of meat are ever the same. Cut wise ,they may look the same but internally??? So,when it comes down to it's like judging BBQ at contests. Totally,subjective.
 
Exactly the same? No. But I have long disagreed with the contention (one often sees on boards) that 'every _______ [fill in the blank: brisket, butt, rib slab] is different". There is scant difference between commercial meat products given similar attributes, such as grade, weight, whether injected, and so forth.

I prefer HH because of the time issue, but also because of the consistency of the results from end-to-end of the brisket, and from cook-to-cook. Also, cooking HH with the foiling stage tends to mitigate issues, if any, of thin ends, lesser marbling, etc.
 
I am new to brisket (ribs and butt is my comfort zone) however I am very interested in this. I agree with an earlier post that you should go buy 2 equal briskets, do the same prep and then cook them in the 2 methods. Also you have the two methods very generalized. How about stating difference between cooking at X temp until internal temp is Y and then second method is cooking at D temp until internal temp is Z although I would assume Y and Z would be equal.
 
Obviously, the better bark is from a low-n-slow cook. At least, that's my experience and what I read.

Other than that though, where's the consensus on one way being better to achieve the best overall result? It's the same with cooking butts and ribs...foiling or not, hh vs. low-n-slow. I haven't found any consensus on which method is best, and I'd be all over it if I had. However, I guess you could argue that what seems to be the method of choice in winning bbq contests provides consensus. A word or two from serious competitors here would be helpful.

....BUT, my experience so far reflects that lack of consensus: I've had good results using higher temps, lower temps, foil or no foil. It seems what matters most is simply how MUCH you cook the meat.

....Also, personal preferences make assessing results a bit subjective: Like I argued recently, one person's moist pork shoulder might be another's greasy. You can take THAT to the bank....On the other hand, "greasy" won't be an issue with a brisket flat.
 

 

Back
Top