Yes! The answer is... yes!

JohnInCarolina

Article here:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-americans-order-their-steak/

HeavyG

"A May 2014 investigation from this very website — one which, by my own admission, began as a campaign to smear those who enjoyed well-done beef — found that when people self-reported their steak preferences, most said medium-rare, followed by medium and then medium-well."

Nice of the author to be so upfront about his own inherent bias.

"Longhorn shared a year’s worth of steak orders from all of its 491 U.S. locations, revealing how Americans ordered all different cuts of steak. It turns out that Americans claim to like their steak a lot rarer than they actually do!"

I guess that goes hand in hand with that sort of machismo/peer pressure that some give in to in order to not be mocked/bullied by their friends and risk losing their man card.

"You're damn right I eat my steaks so rare they still have a pulse. Ain't no other way son".

Jeremiah

Read the title and figured you had finally proposed to @bgebrent

johnmitchell

Jeremiah said:

Read the title and figured you had finally proposed to @bgebrent

Now that is funny.....

Legume

There’s a week missing from their data.  I want to know what people ordered that last week of May and why this has been excluded.  What are they hiding?  

bgebrent

It’s about Dook’s loss to Syracuse. YES!

HendersonTRKing

After the 2016 election, I refuse to click on, read, or believe anything from fivethirtyeight. Nate Silver?  Dead to me. 

SmokeyPitt

I find it interesting how much variation in what temperature people consider medium rare. 

Any steak with an internal temperature from 95 degrees to 105 degrees Fahrenheit is rare, anything from 115 to 125 degrees is medium-rare...

If measuring true final internal temperature, I think these numbers are low. A steak cooked to 130-135 (final temp) is still medium rare IMO. 

Legume

SmokeyPitt said:

I find it interesting how much variation in what temperature people consider medium rare. 

Any steak with an internal temperature from 95 degrees to 105 degrees Fahrenheit is rare, anything from 115 to 125 degrees is medium-rare...

If measuring true final internal temperature, I think these numbers are low. A steak cooked to 130-135 (final temp) is still medium rare IMO. 

I’ve even seen some folks report MR at 140, but I don’t think the color really matches MR expectations when you cook it that much.

JohnInCarolina

HendersonTRKing said:

After the 2016 election, I refuse to click on, read, or believe anything from fivethirtyeight. Nate Silver?  Dead to me. 

I really do not want to sidetrack this thread into politics, but in the final week of the election, 538 had the actual outcome as being somewhere between a one out of three and one out of four chance.  That was obviously miles better than most of the forecasts.  

saluki2007

Legume said:

SmokeyPitt said:

I find it interesting how much variation in what temperature people consider medium rare. 

Any steak with an internal temperature from 95 degrees to 105 degrees Fahrenheit is rare, anything from 115 to 125 degrees is medium-rare...

If measuring true final internal temperature, I think these numbers are low. A steak cooked to 130-135 (final temp) is still medium rare IMO. 

I’ve even seen some folks report MR at 140, but I don’t think the color really matches MR expectations when you cook it that much.

Would this fall under the ever popular "the cow drives the cook"?

DoubleEgger

Right, wrong, who cares? I’m not eating someone else’s steak so it doesn’t matter. I’ll make their steak look like Mickey’s wings if it’ll make someone happy. 

Yno

I wonder if the results from the top steakhouses would be radically different from Longhorn's results. I would think that there would be a major difference in the client base from a chain to a top end place. Not to denigrate Longhorn's in general, but the two I have been to are on a par with Sizzler and Burger Pit. Even Outback and Black Angus pale in comparison to the really good places.

Disclaimer: I love Ruth's Chris!

Cornholio

Yno said:

I wonder if the results from the top steakhouses would be radically different from Longhorn's results. I would think that there would be a major difference in the client base from a chain to a top end place. Not to denigrate Longhorn's in general, but the two I have been to are on a par with Sizzler and Burger Pit. Even Outback and Black Angus pale in comparison to the really good places.

Disclaimer: I love Ruth's Chris!

I’ve never been to Longhorn, they closed them all here not long ago anyways, but if I did eat at one I’d probably order my steak medium.  At Ruth’s Chris I go medium rare but with lower quality cuts I’d shy away from a cool center.  So if I were part of the sample my steak order for the survey (from Longhorn) would be more well done than what I’d give as my answer to the question in general. 

I’d probably skip a steak and go with a burger at a place like Longhorn anyways.   

DoubleEgger

Even Outback....  

HendersonTRKing

JohnInCarolina said:

HendersonTRKing said:

After the 2016 election, I refuse to click on, read, or believe anything from fivethirtyeight. Nate Silver?  Dead to me. 

I really do not want to sidetrack this thread into politics, but in the final week of the election, 538 had the actual outcome as being somewhere between a one out of three and one out of four chance.  That was obviously miles better than most of the forecasts.  

Not sidetracking into politics so much as observing that information from online outlets and sources generally assumed to be trustworthy isn't always what it's cracked up to be.  Far be it from me to stir a political pot on a food-centric (if not food-exclusive) forum.  

I believe in rare steak, exclusively, and I've been known to preach the gospel to the unconverted.  Yesterday, I posted a bone in ribeye reverse sear cook from Sunday night that I let go to 125 IT -- some say that's a perfect medium rare, which is why I let it go that far, but it was way overdone for my taste.  Our guest destroyed it with no complaint (he's polite and wants to stay in the King's good graces as he courts the Princess), and no one at the table seemed disappointed, except for me.  It was a $90.00 hunk of meat and, to me, it was ruined by 10 degrees.

Personally, I'll go with what Martha Stewart has to say about temps and guidelines.  She's my favorite convicted felon and her rehab tour, in which she's often spotted with Calvin Cordozar Broadus Jr. (aka Snoop Dogg to the uninitiated, fo shizzle), has convinced me to follow her wisdom.  Unlike Nate Silver and his ilk, Martha has publicly apologized for her transgressions, fully repented and paid her debt to society!

https://www.marthastewart.com/270074/meat-temperatures-chart

fishlessman

trex

123 strip loin

127 ribeye

works for me and rest it on a rack, not on a plate

HendersonTRKing

Never mind -- eff Martha Stewart, too.  November 2006.  Chx to 165.  Pork to 165.  Feh.

nolaegghead

HendersonTRKing said:

After the 2016 election, I refuse to click on, read, or believe anything from fivethirtyeight. Nate Silver?  Dead to me. 

Might I suggest The National Enquirer might be more appropriate for you and your "ilk"?

SonVolt

HendersonTRKing said:

  Yesterday, I posted a bone in ribeye reverse sear cook from Sunday night that I let go to 125 IT -- some say that's a perfect medium rare, which is why I let it go that far, but it was way overdone for my taste.  

I don't know man, your steak looks perfect.  A rare Ribeye typically isn't that great IMO because the fat doesn't render to my liking. It's one of those cuts that really shines when cooked more towards the medium / medium-rare side of things.

HendersonTRKing

@SonVolt -- it was over, trust me.  I get it -- rib eyes need a bit more for the delicious fat to render.  If I pulled it at 115, it would have been perfection.  125+ whatever holdover rise it got was too much.

There were a few pieces left over that the Prince and I put on our flattop last night for cheesesteaks.  Fried onion, sweet and hot peppers, and shredded cheese -- all covered by a couple amoroso club rolls.  That was perfection.   No pix, so call me out that it didn't happen if you must.

Sorry for the hijack . . . back to 538's polling results.  

Mdames501

I’ve always heard that if a steak is bone in, to let it go a little longer. More of medium, to maximize the flavor. Don’t think I’ve cooked anything bone in before except rib roast.. Anybody find that to be true? I just can’t imagine it would make that much difference  

SmokeyPitt

Mdames501 said:

I’ve always heard that if a steak is bone in, to let it go a little longer. More of medium, to maximize the flavor. Don’t think I’ve cooked anything bone in before except rib roast.. Anybody find that to be true? I just can’t imagine it would make that much difference  

https://amazingribs.com/more-technique-and-science/more-cooking-science/myth-bones-make-meat-better

saluki2007

SmokeyPitt said:

Mdames501 said:

I’ve always heard that if a steak is bone in, to let it go a little longer. More of medium, to maximize the flavor. Don’t think I’ve cooked anything bone in before except rib roast.. Anybody find that to be true? I just can’t imagine it would make that much difference  

https://amazingribs.com/more-technique-and-science/more-cooking-science/myth-bones-make-meat-better

That was a good read.  Thanks for sharing.

GoldenQ

I am in the medium to med well camp.   I used t like well done when growing up but now I like medium for strips and medium well for ribeyes.   the medium rare is not rendered enough for my taste.  Also, I cook my steak slower than most to get it to render.   then I sear it for crust.