O.T. Amazing Ribs dot com, Has anyone read, or do they have this book.

jdMyers

Has anyone been over to Amazingribs.com website and or may have read or bought this book.  The reviews were pretty good just wondering if anyone may have seen it.

Meathead: The Science of Great Barbecue and Grilling

GregW

I visit the site occasionally. Meathead popped into one of my threads many years ago. His only reason for commenting was to point out that his site is not behind a paywall- definitely a self-promotion visit.
With that being said, I do enjoy his site, and I use his Memphis Dust recipe, minus the Rosemary.
I think if you feel you would benefit from his book, give it a shot. It's not that expensive, and I'm sure you will enjoy it. I don't know how much is in the book that can't be found for free on the web, but I'm sure there is some value to the book.

If you do buy it, please report back.
 
 

Botch

I bought a Kindle Paperwhite thingie last Black Friday, and this is the first (and only) book I've downloaded; but, haven't read it yet.  
I think it's pretty popular on this forum.  

jdMyers

lol, thanks.  I appreciate the tip.  

lousubcap

Paging @The Cen-Tex Smoker as he is a big fan of the free and paid section of the site, I believe.  And he is a Q whisperer, especially when it comes to smoke woods and the BGE and brisket.  Should he surface here, heed well anything he offers.  

jtcBoynton

I have the book. Worth having. 

SonVolt

I really don’t like him, tbh. I think he draws a lot of bad conclusions and/or misinterprets his data on things he doesn’t fully understand. Dave Arnold was complaining the other day on his podcast about Meathead not liking lump because it’s “inconsistent compared to charcoal briquettes b/c each briquette is one unit of predictable heat” (paraphrasing Meathead here), which he thought was a ridiculous thing to conclude. 

He’s also kind of a cry baby on Twitter. 

nolaegghead

"When I was in college my parents warned me that smoking marijuana would lead to harder stuff. She was right. Now I smoke pork."
--Meathead

HeavyG

I bought the book when it first came out. It's a good book. Much of the info in the book is also on the website but there are at least some recipes that don't seem to be on the site. On the other hand, there are lots of recipes on the site that are not in the book. 

Like J. Kenjis Food Lab book, I bought the Meathead book mainly to support the good work he has done over the years. Also, I'm a book person and I still prefer having a book to flip thru rather than having to always click/scroll. I generally avoid buying cookbooks in Kindle format (seems too many of them have formatting issues) but Amazon had the Kindle version of the Meathead book on sale for $2.99 a few months ago so I did also buy that (the formatting is fine).

When the hardcover first came out it included an offer to try the Pitmaster Club free for a month (that offer might still be available when a hardcover is sold but I'm not sure). It's the only part of the Amazing Ribs site behind a paywall. It's a good forum and I've been a member for a few years. The annual fee is only $24/year and I find it to be worth the money.

Should you buy the book? If you have read every page on the website then the book may not offer much of interest. If you have not read every page of the site then the book is a handy resource (and I know it has at least one recipe that I could never find on his website).

If you're undecided, see if your local library has a copy that you could spend some time with.

The Cen-Tex Smoker

Never heard of it.

The Cen-Tex Smoker

SonVolt said:

I really don’t like him, tbh. I think he draws a lot of bad conclusions and/or misinterprets his data on things he doesn’t fully understand. Dave Arnold was complaining the other day on his podcast about Meathead not liking lump because it’s “inconsistent compared to charcoal briquettes b/c each briquette is one unit of predictable heat” (paraphrasing Meathead here), which he thought was a ridiculous thing to conclude. 

He’s also kind of a cry baby on Twitter. 

. 

jdMyers

I got the epub version.  Im a reader as well.  Thanks truly for the input.

SonVolt

The Cen-Tex Smoker said:

SonVolt said:

I really don’t like him, tbh. I think he draws a lot of bad conclusions and/or misinterprets his data on things he doesn’t fully understand. Dave Arnold was complaining the other day on his podcast about Meathead not liking lump because it’s “inconsistent compared to charcoal briquettes b/c each briquette is one unit of predictable heat” (paraphrasing Meathead here), which he thought was a ridiculous thing to conclude. 

He’s also kind of a cry baby on Twitter. 

. 

.

stlcharcoal

SonVolt said:

I really don’t like him, tbh. I think he draws a lot of bad conclusions and/or misinterprets his data on things he doesn’t fully understand. Dave Arnold was complaining the other day on his podcast about Meathead not liking lump because it’s “inconsistent compared to charcoal briquettes b/c each briquette is one unit of predictable heat” (paraphrasing Meathead here), which he thought was a ridiculous thing to conclude. 

Yeah if you watch the video on youtube, he says the same thing.

He's right about charcoal being for heat and not for smoke, but then it goes downhill from there.  He says that the bigger chunks can have uncarbonized wood in them, which is true of some brands, but if its properly carbonized that's not the case.  Then picks up a piece and says its construction scrap and he assumes it has wood preservatives in it.....which is not true of most brands anymore.

He also picks up a small piece and a big piece and says they burn at different rates.  No, they burn at the same rate.  Carbon doesn't burn any faster based off its size.....burns the same by weight.  Btu/# is Btu/#.  In a closed vessel, like a kamado, it really doesn't matter since you meter the o2.

Then he goes on to praise briquettes, saying they are nothing more than sawdust and starch.  NOOOOOO.  Lot more stuff than that.....sawdust, starch, borax, sodium nitrate, mineral char (anthracite), charcoal, limestone, etc.  Why else is the BTU/# so much lower than lump?  

Americas Test Kitchen always trashes lump charcoal too.....they pushed the match light ones many years ago for convenience.  They also make jokes about the BGE and say how overpriced it is.

lkapigian

With anything you have to draw your own conclusions , I like some of his stuff, use his Memphis Dust as a platform to build from all the time. When I got into cold smoking proteins , he really stears people sway from that so I passed over that in his writings, cold smoking ( albeit has to be done right with properly cured protien ) is not as gloom and doom as he makes it sound 

Besides , I get all the info I need right here

smittydog27

I enjoy the book, used several recipes in it.  Nothing wrong with having multiple references on hand. 

As far as 'liking' someone or their ideals, it's all subjective.  Just like this forum.

1voyager

I signed up for the paid section of his website but discontinued after the yearly subscription was up. The main benefit of the membership was to avoid having to wade through all the ads. He has some great recipes, techniques by "experts" as well as lengthy product reviews. With all the information here as well as his non-membership site, I can't justify buying his book.

Please let us know if you buy the book and find it helpful.

jtcBoynton

stlcharcoal said:

SonVolt said:

I really don’t like him, tbh. I think he draws a lot of bad conclusions and/or misinterprets his data on things he doesn’t fully understand. Dave Arnold was complaining the other day on his podcast about Meathead not liking lump because it’s “inconsistent compared to charcoal briquettes b/c each briquette is one unit of predictable heat” (paraphrasing Meathead here), which he thought was a ridiculous thing to conclude. 

Yeah if you watch the video on youtube, he says the same thing.

He's right about charcoal being for heat and not for smoke, but then it goes downhill from there.  He says that the bigger chunks can have uncarbonized wood in them, which is true of some brands, but if its properly carbonized that's not the case. 

Then picks up a piece and says its construction scrap and he assumes it has wood preservatives in it.....which is not true of most brands anymore.

He also picks up a small piece and a big piece and says they burn at different rates.  No, they burn at the same rate.  Carbon doesn't burn any faster based off its size.....burns the same by weight.  Btu/# is Btu/#.  In a closed vessel, like a kamado, it really doesn't matter since you meter the o2.

Then he goes on to praise briquettes, saying they are nothing more than sawdust and starch.  NOOOOOO.  Lot more stuff than that.....sawdust, starch, borax, sodium nitrate, mineral char (anthracite), charcoal, limestone, etc.  Why else is the BTU/# so much lower than lump?  

Americas Test Kitchen always trashes lump charcoal too.....they pushed the match light ones many years ago for convenience.  They also make jokes about the BGE and say how overpriced it is.

A couple of thoughts

He's right about charcoal being for heat and not for smoke, but then it goes downhill from there.  He says that the bigger chunks can have uncarbonized wood in them, which is true of some brands, but if its properly carbonized that's not the case.  

--  You criticize him and agree at the same time.  He says they can. You say sometimes. He doesn't say always.  My personal experience agrees with both of you - by far most of the less carbonized pieces I have run across have been large pieces. This is one of the factors that help define quality brands of lump - the ability to have large pieces that are fully carbonized.

Then picks up a piece and says its construction scrap and he assumes it has wood preservatives in it.....which is not true of most brands anymore.

--  Again you criticize and agree.  Construction scrap may have wood preservatives. I don't know how to tell after the charcoal processing. So to be on the safe side making the assumption is reasonable. You say most brands don't have wood preservative treated construction scrap anymore - so which ones do?  How can I know? Yes I trust some brands - like Rockwood - but what about brand X?

He also picks up a small piece and a big piece and says they burn at different rates.  No, they burn at the same rate.  Carbon doesn't burn any faster based off its size.....burns the same by weight.  Btu/# is Btu/#.  In a closed vessel, like a kamado, it really doesn't matter since you meter the o2.

-- Yes carbon Btu/# is Btu/#. The same weight will produce the same total Btu.  The rate will indeed differ based on the size of pieces (in an unlimited airflow grilling environment).  Carbon needs air to burn. The amount of carbon exposed to air impacts the burn rate.  Size of the pieces impacts the surface area to weight ratio. With our eggs we limit the airflow so we don't notice the impact of size of the pieces.  Meathead writes mostly for the grilling crowd and for cookers that control temp more by limiting the amount of fuel rather than airflow.

bicktrav

I use the site occasionally. I'm sure the book has some good stuff in it, but I haven't bought it and don't plan to.

stlcharcoal

jtcBoynton said:

stlcharcoal said:

SonVolt said:

I really don’t like him, tbh. I think he draws a lot of bad conclusions and/or misinterprets his data on things he doesn’t fully understand. Dave Arnold was complaining the other day on his podcast about Meathead not liking lump because it’s “inconsistent compared to charcoal briquettes b/c each briquette is one unit of predictable heat” (paraphrasing Meathead here), which he thought was a ridiculous thing to conclude. 

Yeah if you watch the video on youtube, he says the same thing.

He's right about charcoal being for heat and not for smoke, but then it goes downhill from there.  He says that the bigger chunks can have uncarbonized wood in them, which is true of some brands, but if its properly carbonized that's not the case. 

Then picks up a piece and says its construction scrap and he assumes it has wood preservatives in it.....which is not true of most brands anymore.

He also picks up a small piece and a big piece and says they burn at different rates.  No, they burn at the same rate.  Carbon doesn't burn any faster based off its size.....burns the same by weight.  Btu/# is Btu/#.  In a closed vessel, like a kamado, it really doesn't matter since you meter the o2.

Then he goes on to praise briquettes, saying they are nothing more than sawdust and starch.  NOOOOOO.  Lot more stuff than that.....sawdust, starch, borax, sodium nitrate, mineral char (anthracite), charcoal, limestone, etc.  Why else is the BTU/# so much lower than lump?  

Americas Test Kitchen always trashes lump charcoal too.....they pushed the match light ones many years ago for convenience.  They also make jokes about the BGE and say how overpriced it is.

A couple of thoughts

He's right about charcoal being for heat and not for smoke, but then it goes downhill from there.  He says that the bigger chunks can have uncarbonized wood in them, which is true of some brands, but if its properly carbonized that's not the case.  

--  You criticize him and agree at the same time.  He says they can. You say sometimes. He doesn't say always.  My personal experience agrees with both of you - by far most of the less carbonized pieces I have run across have been large pieces. This is one of the factors that help define quality brands of lump - the ability to have large pieces that are fully carbonized.

Then picks up a piece and says its construction scrap and he assumes it has wood preservatives in it.....which is not true of most brands anymore.

--  Again you criticize and agree.  Construction scrap may have wood preservatives. I don't know how to tell after the charcoal processing. So to be on the safe side making the assumption is reasonable. You say most brands don't have wood preservative treated construction scrap anymore - so which ones do?  How can I know? Yes I trust some brands - like Rockwood - but what about brand X?

He also picks up a small piece and a big piece and says they burn at different rates.  No, they burn at the same rate.  Carbon doesn't burn any faster based off its size.....burns the same by weight.  Btu/# is Btu/#.  In a closed vessel, like a kamado, it really doesn't matter since you meter the o2.

-- Yes carbon Btu/# is Btu/#. The same weight will produce the same total Btu.  The rate will indeed differ based on the size of pieces (in an unlimited airflow grilling environment).  Carbon needs air to burn. The amount of carbon exposed to air impacts the burn rate.  Size of the pieces impacts the surface area to weight ratio. With our eggs we limit the airflow so we don't notice the impact of size of the pieces.  Meathead writes mostly for the grilling crowd and for cookers that control temp more by limiting the amount of fuel rather than airflow.

My point was that he was (pardon the pun) lumping all lump brands into one.  There are the goods, bads, and a lot of others out there.  And to completely discount lump charcoal because of a few bad brands out there is crazy.  Why worry about potential wood preservatives in lump, but not cooking over anthracite and sawdust (which could have the same preservatives) in briquettes??  Who knows where the sawdust came from...

I haven't seen any mention of construction scrap in a lot of years.  That was one popular brand that got caught doing that--people found plywood, floor molding, etc in there.  But that stopped......and now if they see a 90 angle on anything, they assume it's still construction scrap.  Mill scrap is going to have 90 angles as well.  As far as carbonization, all he had to do was try to break that piece--if it broke apart by hand, it was 80%+.

The exterior surface of charcoal is negligible in the burn rate.  It's not like wood or briquettes where it has to burn from the outside in.  Properly carbonized charcoal has a surface area of 250+ m2/g, which means a racquetball sized chunk has the surface area of a tennis court.  Oxygen enters all those pores and that chunk is burning just as much on the inside as it the outside.  A gigantic chunk will burn slower because there is wood in it (like cantaloupe sized), but that piece in the video could have been easily been properly carbonized.

Again, he has a point on some aspects of bad lump charcoal, but doesn't seem to care about all the bad aspects of briquettes.....whether in general, or by specific brand.  That's what I am pointing out.

JethroBodeen

I'm not a fan and therefore, don't own it. I let me free year subscription laps too.

Spillin

I also don't have his book but I wouldn't be opposed to reading it.  One thing I can say for sure is he hasn't met an advertiser that he will say no to!!

The Cen-Tex Smoker

Spillin said:

I also don't have his book but I wouldn't be opposed to reading it.  One thing I can say for sure is he hasn't met an advertiser that he will say no to!!

His site is unreadable anymore. I never go there unless I'm looking to revisit something I read before. my god man, give it a rest. It's like a porn site from 2002.

alaskanassasin

The Cen-Tex Smoker said:

Spillin said:

I also don't have his book but I wouldn't be opposed to reading it.  One thing I can say for sure is he hasn't met an advertiser that he will say no to!!

His site is unreadable anymore. I never go there unless I'm looking to revisit something I read before. my god man, give it a rest. It's like a porn site from 2002.

Yap I wouldn’t wade through that much crap to get the winning lottery numbers.  

HeavyG

Spillin said:

I also don't have his book but I wouldn't be opposed to reading it.  One thing I can say for sure is he hasn't met an advertiser that he will say no to!!

His site has fewer ads than most web sites I visit. I think each page has about 4 or 5 ads. On the plus side, none of the ads I've seen are annoying popups or auto-playing videos.

alaskanassasin

I was inundated with pop ups on my pc 

The Cen-Tex Smoker

alaskanassasin said:

I was inundated with pop ups on my pc 

Me too. And all the super flashy **** on the sides. My god it’s horrible. 

GregW

I'm loaded up with ad blocker extensions. Amazing Ribs doesn't give me any trouble with ads or popups.

nolaegghead

My take away:  don't visit amazingribs.com if you have epilepsy 

caliking

I don’t have the patience or attention span to read like that any... SQUIRREL!!!

jetman96

Ad-blockers make the free site manageable.

Look who his biggest sponsor is - on the website and videos. It's Kingsford. I could come up with all kinds of reasons not to use lump if I was receiving free briquettes and advertising to support my website.

Take any of his recommendations for equipment with a huge grain of salt. There are some pieces here and there that are good, but reviews elsewhere aren't as good. Again, advertisers supporting his website.

With all that said, he has some great recipes and techniques that are independent of what equipment or heat source is used. I've learned a lot from his site and will continue to keep it in my rotation of sources.