London broil: how low and how slow?

Prof Dan · June 2005

Following a variety of great tips, I cooked a London broil at 300 for one hour last night, to an internal temperature of 130. I let it rest 10 minutes before slicing it thinly. This was the juiciest and tenderest medium-rare London broil I ever ate, but that doesn't mean that it was as tender as filet mignon. Let's be honest: I eat London broil because it is so lean, but that means that it is not as tender as steak.[p]Here's my question: if 300 for one hour produces a much better London broil than 350 for 10 minutes a side, then what about 275 for 90 minutes? 250 for two hours? 200 for four hours??[p]

The Naked Whiz · June 2005

Prof Dan,
Low and slow is good for pieces of meat with collagen that needs to be broken down. The collagen is converted to gelatin and this is what keeps the meat moist and why you can cook it to temperatures like 180 to 200 degrees. If you cook a piece of meat without collagen low and slow, you will end up drying it out.
TNW

Bigfoot · June 2005

Prof Dan,[p]The Baltimore Sun recently did a thing on real low and slow - I have tried it in a regular over (before I had my egg) - I did a london broil at 200 degrees (just under 4 hours) to a temp of 130 then a 10 min rest - it was far more tender then the ones i usually did at 325.

Bigfoot · June 2005

Naked whiz is correct though - it was NOT as juicy - even with a pan of water in with it - but it was not totally dry either...

London broil: how low and how slow?

Comments

Categories