Can't seem to get the reverse seer method down...


 
Bob Hunter

Bob Hunter

TVWBB Pro
So I bought a fantanstic looking Prime New York Steak today for my fathers day dinner.


Setting up a dual zone fire, I decided I would use a base of charcoal and then add a bunch of Grapevine on top for my fire.


I then waited for the grapevine to burn down to coals then placed the steaks on the low temp side and cooked them with the lid closed until the internal temps were around 110°F. Then I basted one side with butter and placed them on the hot side for three minutes. Basted and then turned for another 3 minutes.

The problem I had is that while seering the steak I kept getting flare ups and ended up charing one side of the steaks.

I cant really pull them off any earlier because as it is they were on the rare side of medium rare (which I prefer) but my wife and kids like them medium to medium well.

Any ideas? Should I cook them longer on the low temp zone and then less time on the high temp side.
 
Bob,
IMO that well marbled steak did not need butter, and I'm pretty sure the butter was your major flare up problem.
It's not a big deal to move the meat off the heat when it flares.
 
It actually may be just the marbeling in the Prime steaks. That's one of the reasons I prefer choice to prime (I know, I'm weird).

Try it without the butter but I bet it happens again with the reverse sear. If it does, I would actually consider doing a sear first. Get the grill screaming hot and put the cold steaks down for about 1 minutes before the fat starts rendering (and flare ups start). Then move it over and cook indirect for the rest of the cook.

If I was doing it on the gasser, I'd probably do the whole thing indirect. I preheat with all 3 burners on high. I'd throw the steak down in the middle and cut off the middle burner right after that. Flip at 4 minutes and cook indirect the rest of the way. That way you get the grill marks on one side (all you need from presentation) but not the flare ups.

Those steaks look awesome, BTW.
 
I've had the good fortune of cooking a lot of prime beef. I have also determined that for the prime stuff, the reverse sear method just isn't for me. As mentioned previously, there's a ton of well distributed fat in these cuts, and cooking indirect first sets the course for all of that fat to render, and indeed in my experience, causes more flaring up when it comes time to sear. However, if the sear is done first, the fat is still largely in solid form, and it doesn't seem to be quite the issue. In fact, it kickstarts the breakdown of that fat, so during the indirect phase of cooking, that lovely stuff fully distributes throughout, without creating an issue with flareups.
 
When my steaks hit 85-90 degrees, I get my good ol cast iron pan and let it sit over the hot coals till I'm ready to sear. I even start a fresh load of lump wood in the chimney - I want the sear temperature crazy hot! Right after the sear, I close the vents and smother the lump coals so I can use them next grilling (When I sear the steaks, I also pat them with a little herb butter on them).

For really well marbled meat, I like them rare - especially Waygu beef.

yes, I know - *Ewwwww* Cast iron pan and Butter on a BBQ! *Gasp*, but that's the way I like it

p.s. *Yay!* my first real post =^)
 
I'm in your camp Hayden. I posted a couple of weeks ago about some issues with cooking steaks using reverse sear. I think it works well for the larger cuts (used it for about an 6 pound prime rib for f-day) but for me... it's just not working well with steaks. I've done 3 more comparisons cooking about 12 steaks total since my one post. I've adjusted things and tried different things... but I still think just cooking over a hot direct fire yields the best results.

I'd also say that I'm not opposed to adding butter, but occasionally do so immediately after pulling the steak for it's rest. Like others mentioned, on the fire you're just likley to have flare ups and potentially worse... scorch the butter that's on the steak.

I don't know... I think if RS was that spectacular, the finer steakhouses would do it. None do that I know of. Still, there are many here on this site that create top notch steaks using the method, so it's hard to close the door on it, but so far... giving a lot of attention to it... I have to say I'm not a huge fan. It's mostly a texture thing for me though.


Originally posted by Hayden McCall:
I've had the good fortune of cooking a lot of prime beef. I have also determined that for the prime stuff, the reverse sear method just isn't for me. As mentioned previously, there's a ton of well distributed fat in these cuts, and cooking indirect first sets the course for all of that fat to render, and indeed in my experience, causes more flaring up when it comes time to sear. However, if the sear is done first, the fat is still largely in solid form, and it doesn't seem to be quite the issue. In fact, it kickstarts the breakdown of that fat, so during the indirect phase of cooking, that lovely stuff fully distributes throughout, without creating an issue with flareups.
Click to expand...
 
Bob,

I don't like the reverse sear method nor do I understand the concept. IMO, you sear the meat to lock in the juices and get some nice caramelized grill marks. That's why it's done in the beginning.

Personally, I light up the grill with one side for direct and the other side for indirect. I use the 2-2-2-2 method. Two minutes on direct, flip, two more on direct, flip for two minutes on indirect, then flip for two more on indirect. Comes out a nice med-rare on my grill. So a total of four minutes on each side. Works for me anyways....
 
Originally posted by A.J. Crocker:
Bob,

I don't like the reverse sear method nor do I understand the concept. IMO, you sear the meat to lock in the juices and get some nice caramelized grill marks. That's why it's done in the beginning.

Personally, I light up the grill with one side for direct and the other side for indirect. I use the 2-2-2-2 method. Two minutes on direct, flip, two more on direct, flip for two minutes on indirect, then flip for two more on indirect. Comes out a nice med-rare on my grill. So a total of four minutes on each side. Works for me anyways....
Click to expand...

searing doesn't lock in any juices

that said, i don't think reverse sear is worth it for most steaks (unless you're sous vide cooking)
 
Originally posted by TroyRedington:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A.J. Crocker:
Bob,

I don't like the reverse sear method nor do I understand the concept. IMO, you sear the meat to lock in the juices and get some nice caramelized grill marks. That's why it's done in the beginning.

Personally, I light up the grill with one side for direct and the other side for indirect. I use the 2-2-2-2 method. Two minutes on direct, flip, two more on direct, flip for two minutes on indirect, then flip for two more on indirect. Comes out a nice med-rare on my grill. So a total of four minutes on each side. Works for me anyways....
Click to expand...

searing doesn't lock in any juices

that said, i don't think reverse sear is worth it for most steaks (unless you're sous vide cooking) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's funny how you continually hear that over and over and over and over again. Every show... every advertisement... every "expert" says the same thing.

If you say something enough... everyone will eventually believe it I guess.
 
Originally posted by TroyRedington:

searing doesn't lock in any juices
Click to expand...

That's a pretty bold statement on a highly controversial subject.

I would have to disagree somewhat though. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "lock in". I do believe that if you sear a steak first and cook it to let's say medium while cooking another steak over indirect heat without searing also to medium, you'll find that the steak that wasn't seared lost more moisture due to the longer cooking time. The seared steak would also have a less porous exterior allowing less moisture to escape.

I guess one could confirm by weighing both steaks before and after cooking. I'm not interested enough in the results to try it though. All I know is that I like a seared steak much better whether it has retained more "juices" or not.
 
I cant imagine reverse searing any steak under 2". usually by the time a steak has a sear, its done. Ive done a few 2" plus ribeyes that would do a nice reverse sear but nothing smaller
 
Originally posted by A.J. Crocker:
...

I guess one could confirm by weighing both steaks before and after cooking. I'm not interested enough in the results to try it though. ...
Click to expand...

Alton Brown did this exact experiment on his show and determined sear did not seal in the juices.
 
Originally posted by Chris Bjork:
I cant imagine reverse searing any steak under 2". usually by the time a steak has a sear, its done. Ive done a few 2" plus ribeyes that would do a nice reverse sear but nothing smaller
Click to expand...

I'm with ya. By the time its seared on both sides the middle is medium rare. Especially so if the steak was allowed to warm outside the refer a little.
 
Ok my 2 cents....

You cant lock in juices by searing. Then all low and slow meat would be dry right?

Reverse sear works just as well with a thin steak as it does with a thick one. WHY? OK..Cook the steak indirect @ low heat,225-250(max) Take it of when the internal is about 3f below target...Let it rest untill you se the inner temp drop. "Now its cooked to PERFECTION" Right? When you take the steak off be sure to bump the grill temp up. Even if it takes 10-15 min to get to sear temp...DOESENT matter. The meat is cooked low´n´slow to the inner temp you want. Then just get the char/grill marks you are after over a Blazing fire. The inner temp wont move. But you get the important char on the steak that makes it just abit better then a non chared steak.

I have cooked steaks that are so thin...That if i whant the char im after i know i have to eat overcooked meat. It would be better to eat them raw.

But with this method i can nail every thickness of steak on the inside/outside.
 
One of the things you might not think about that I like to reverse sear is chicken breast.

Chicken breast is so irregular in shape and so lean that and easy to overcook that I like the extra control I have when I reverse sear. Chicken breast will never be my favorite but it's a stable around here and I've actually gotten the process down to the point where it pretty good and I credit the cooking method more than anything.
 
Originally posted by A.J. Crocker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TroyRedington:

searing doesn't lock in any juices
Click to expand...

That's a pretty bold statement on a highly controversial subject.

I would have to disagree somewhat though. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "lock in". I do believe that if you sear a steak first and cook it to let's say medium while cooking another steak over indirect heat without searing also to medium, you'll find that the steak that wasn't seared lost more moisture due to the longer cooking time. The seared steak would also have a less porous exterior allowing less moisture to escape.

I guess one could confirm by weighing both steaks before and after cooking. I'm not interested enough in the results to try it though. All I know is that I like a seared steak much better whether it has retained more "juices" or not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i like seared steak too.

it's been tested before. seared steak will weigh less, because searing loses more moisture than a steak cooked indirectly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top