Barbecue myths?


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
I quite agree. Cooking is an art. But science informs it, lets you know what is possible, how and why, and what is not.

Art is creative. With an understanding of the science one can more readily create the art on one's own, rather than simply follow a recipe another has created.
 
IMHo HH is grilling NO factoid just my opinion and BBQ is low and slow ! My 2 cents if its worth that !

wsmsmile8gm.gif
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Well I firmly believe in Magic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magic is an illusion, slight of hand, misdirection
icon_wink.gif
. There is definite science behind cooking. The better one understands the science (physics, chemistry, etc.) behind the cooking, the better cook one becomes. You can manipulate and transform the food more accurately when you know how it will react with other elements. It takes the guess work out of your efforts. But hey, I understand what you are trying to communicate
icon_biggrin.gif
.

Paul
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jerry P.:
Thanks for the responses but for the most part, these are opinions. I'm looking for verifiable facts like smoke not being absorbed but rather adhering to the meat's surface. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even though this is TWVB forums, last I checked, this is a bbq forum, not a science class.
icon_confused.gif


Now hold on...What I mean, is that we all have opinions and we all might actually stumble upon some science from time to time. Regardless though, my science isn't yours unless you test it and find it true for yourself. It's all antedotal until tested, seeing is believing...like in a laboratory, and talk is cheap...like something said on the internet.
icon_biggrin.gif


If we're up to spouting some science, get ready for some LONGGGGG posts, complete with a whole lot of details to back up all the factoids....but on the other hand, anything and everything should be tried or verified for yourself, whether purported to be fact or opinion. What do they say? "Your mileage may vary."
icon_wink.gif


Regards,
Dave
wsm, otg, smoky joe, uds, char-griller w/sfb
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even though this is TWVB forums, last I checked, this is a bbq forum, not a science class. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All I was looking for, Dave, was one thread devoted to separating barbecue fact from fiction. Sorry if I offended your sensibilities
icon_rolleyes.gif
.
 
Jerry, it's cool, and I'm sure 'bout everyone here shares your sentiments. Like I posted ealier, your request seems to be the essence of this forum.

.....but keep in mind that in light of my explanation that followed the quote, please understand that I'm not 'dissing science in cooking.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now hold on...What I mean, is that we all have opinions and we all might actually stumble upon some science from time to time. Regardless though, my science isn't yours unless you test it and find it true for yourself. It's all antedotal until tested, seeing is believing...like in a laboratory, and talk is cheap...like something said on the internet. Big Grin

If we're up to spouting some science, get ready for some LONGGGGG posts, complete with a whole lot of details to back up all the factoids....but on the other hand, anything and everything should be tried or verified for yourself, whether purported to be fact or opinion. What do they say? "Your mileage may vary." Wink </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do we have to stumble upon science from time to time? I find no problem in sticking only to methods that are firmly rooted in logic and reason and discarding any that aren't. The great thing about science is that it helps remove bias, and lets you move freely between competing hypotheses when new information is presented. I hate water pans, but I will not allow my bias to get in the way when somebody can show me they do something valuable. Science is a helpful tool for dealing with a brain that can easily be fooled when observing reality, especially when multiple variables are present. Just like my cutlery helps me cook, so does science.

There's great resources available and in some cases original research on cooking on the internet. We don't have to rely solely on opinions, especially when many are not helpful. Jerry mentioned his intent for the thread was to move away from mere opinions and get down to some truths.

And most of the information I discuss around here are ideas that came from trusted sources and verified by myself. I won't post anything that I can't produce a source for, or I will clearly state that I'm just taking a wild guess. Please know that I'm not making stuff up.

I'm entertained by this forum as much as the next person. But I am also educated here, and, for me, that's the reason I'm here.

back to the thread...I had a really good myth too, but I got distracted...
 
Well, J, do we need to scientifically verify that you don't need a meat grinder to make bbq out of a pork shoulder?

I saw that somewhere recently, but I guess as long as it doesn't gain in popularity it doesn't qualify as a myth. I hope it doesn't turn into the "Rhode Island Crutch" or something. Sorry, I just cracked up when I saw it.
 
Interesting thread. I'd like to thank Mark Evenson for introducing magic into the discussion. By that I simply mean that any chef, home cook, or Q'er must use intuition (knowledge based on experience) to turn out good food. I think what some of the members are reacting to is the notion that the rational methods of science alone can turn out great Q.
Have you ever watched a non-cook follow directions from a cookbook? The results are not good. But with practice and experience (with eyes, ears, and taste buds open), that newbie will eventually have better and better results. I think we can all agree that any food (barbecue or otherwise), wonderfully and correctly prepared is pure alchemy.
 
Ribs will dry out faster if cooked vertically, like in a rib rack.

There's your myth. I think the reason it's false is that as long as the ribs are still cooking, moisture is being forced out. In other words, gravity has little effect, and the meat juices won't be reabsorbed as long as the ribs are still cooking.
 
True, true, Dave - and science backs you.
icon_smile.gif


I don't think anyone is saying that 'science alone' can do anything, Gary. We're saying that a knowledge of the science behind the cooking can lead to better results, and can allow for better cooking in the future. The cook in your example might have improved results through practice and experience, cooking the recipe over and over, but if she were also to understand the science behind what she was doing she would either achieve the results much sooner, or be able to transfer her knowledge much more readily to other, similar cooking tasks, or both.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Interesting thread. I'd like to thank Mark Evenson for introducing magic into the discussion. By that I simply mean that any chef, home cook, or Q'er must use intuition (knowledge based on experience) to turn out good food. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I get your point, and agree that practice and experience beat out book knowledge.

But I have to politely disagree that blindly following steps has anything to do with I was referring to as science in cooking.

The key for me is knowledge PLUS practice. When I understand the how and why of a given method, I can combine that with my personal observations, and I improve my ability to execute that method.

When people give out opinions not grounded in some basic truth, they muddy the water for me and make it difficult to improve. I tend to get perturbed when I see genuinely false information being propagated, and even when unverified opinions are expressed. But that's just me, because I read and absorb everything, and hate having to figure out what is correct and what is bs (luckily Kevin doesn't mind me emailing him for verification).

And merely to play devil's advocate, I'll throw Ferran Adria's name into the mix. From what I know, his cooking is 100% scientific yet comes off as pure magic:

roul%C3%A9%2Bglace%2Bmangue-vanille%2Bel%2Bbulli.jpg
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't think anyone is saying that 'science alone' can do anything, Gary. We're saying that a knowledge of the science behind the cooking can lead to better results, and can allow for better cooking in the future. The cook in your example might have improved results through practice and experience, cooking the recipe over and over, but if she were also to understand the science behind what she was doing she would either achieve the results much sooner, or be able to transfer her knowledge much more readily to other, similar cooking tasks, or both. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ah, the ever humbling learning curve.

once again, very eloquent...should have just left it to you...again
icon_wink.gif
 
Any thoughts on Alton Brown, and his 'scientific' approach?
Any que myths spotted on Good Eats?
I know he's not all about bbq/grilling.

As a side note, IMO, Steven Raichlen doesn't seem to spout many myths, but haven't seen many of his shows.
 
On Alton Brown's pulled pork show (which happens to be what sucked me into BBQ in the first place), he said that as long as your cook is under 6 hours, all hardwood smoke is the same. Only after 6 hours do you notice flavor differences between wood varieties. I wonder if that's true.
 
I think the conversation has steered off into semantics land. We've all got our own perceptions of the meanings behind the words "science," "art," and "magic."

From the scientific perspective as it applies to art - anyone can be shown the proper way to put paint on a canvas or how to play some chords on a guitar, but it takes practice, skill and creativity to do them well. So, like Kevin and J have said, science informs art.

We benefit as cooks today from all the experimentation that has gone before us.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jerry P.:
Thanks for the responses but for the most part, these are opinions. I'm looking for verifiable facts like smoke not being absorbed but rather adhering to the meat's surface. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think it is ALL about opinion. Take BB ribs for instance. I can cook them low and slow on my smoker, indiretly on my kettle, slowly or quickly. I can smoke em slather em and sauce em or not and every variation of this has given me ribs both I and my guests love.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think it is ALL about opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it's not all about opinion, John. Meat absorbs smoke or it doesn't. Spritzing and mopping keep meat moist or they don't. Chicken is safe to eat at 160 degrees or it isn't. These are completely different questions than whether or not pulled pork is better with or without sauce.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by j biesinger:

When people give out opinions not grounded in some basic truth, they muddy the water for me and make it difficult to improve. I tend to get perturbed when I see genuinely false information being propagated, and even when unverified opinions are expressed. But that's just me, because I read and absorb everything, and hate having to figure out what is correct and what is bs (luckily Kevin doesn't mind me emailing him for verification). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Where I get perterbed is when I get a cookbook that has half-truths and myths, and obviously untested recipes. However, when I read folks internet posts, I try to keep in mind that I don't do that great a job in controlling all the variables when I barbeque myself.


....Of course, I kind of think the myths and such make for good entertainment, too. Alton Brown's entertainment is a rarity, and that's why he's successful at what he does.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jerry P.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think it is ALL about opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it's not all about opinion, John. Meat absorbs smoke or it doesn't. Spritzing and mopping keep meat moist or they don't. Chicken is safe to eat at 160 degrees or it isn't. These are completely different questions than whether or not pulled pork is better with or without sauce. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think we're often dealing with far too complex a set of variables (not including our own tastes) to make hard rules about what is "the" way. To that effect we generally simplify the information we use down a little bit too. What percentage of backyard cooks even take the temperature of their poultry? Of those that do and aim for 160, how many realize that it is a time and temperature thing and that chicken would be safe if it was held at 150 for 5 minutes too? Whats in the mop or spritz? What cut of meat is it going on? Whats the air flow rate through the cooker that day and the humidity level inside? You can take sound principles and use them for your cooks, but I think a lot of this is about finding what techniques work for us. As noted earlier, I don't feel like I need water in my WSM, some of the guys with big smokers disagree on their rigs.

Anyway, to the smoke penetration of meat question. I'd think its at least plausible. We generally accept that spice flavors can be pulled into meat right? How much does heating hinder that? Are other variables at play too like fat content, or muscle fiber size differences like from ground meat to whole roasts? Don't most people say that ground meat takes on smoke flavor more quickly? Surely thats not just due to surface area. Why do my cheeses have a hearty smoke flavor after just 30-45 minutes, even strongly flavored cheese? Next time I'll be sure to take a sample from the dead center of my butt when pulling and pay close attention.

Personally the myth I hate most is that lower and slower is always better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

 

Back
Top