What's your favorite way to grill steaks?

Mark_B_Good

I personally like the control on a iron skillet (with butter/garlic), followed by a quick direct sear.  Here is the method I use.

Reverse sear, pan grilled steaks! - Page 2 — Big Green Egg - EGGhead Forum - The Ultimate Cooking Experience...

JohnInCarolina

RyanStl said:

I tried SV for first time then cast iron butter sear because it was raining outside.  It wasn't as amazing as people talk about when talking SV.  I think I'm good with nothing fancy and cook direct on the BGE.

So… a couple of thoughts here.  First of all, SV isn’t always the best approach for everything.  With steaks, in my experience there are some cuts where it really shines (like filets).  But for thick ribeyes, I actually prefer the reverse sear.

But secondly, and this is just as important: sous-vide is not just a one time experiment.  With a SV cook, you need to think of time and temperature in the bath as ingredients.  Changing either can have a fairly significant impact on the final product. 

Just my $0.02

RyanStl

JohnInCarolina said:

RyanStl said:

I tried SV for first time then cast iron butter sear because it was raining outside.  It wasn't as amazing as people talk about when talking SV.  I think I'm good with nothing fancy and cook direct on the BGE.

So… a couple of thoughts here.  First of all, SV isn’t always the best approach for everything.  With steaks, in my experience there are some cuts where it really shines (like filets).  But for thick ribeyes, I actually prefer the reverse sear.

But secondly, and this is just as important: sous-vide is not just a one time experiment.  With a SV cook, you need to think of time and temperature in the bath as ingredients.  Changing either can have a fairly significant impact on the final product. 

Just my $0.02

Good point, I did some large rib eye and t-bones at the same time.  The SV process took out so much juice, I felt the steaks were drier than they should have been.  The juices made awesome gravy for mashed potatoes though.  I cooked at 135 for 3 hrs. I think initially it was set to 139, but decided to lower down to 135 after 30 minutes.

Th wife was also dissatisfied I wouldn't fire up the grill when it was a steady rain.

Thatgrimguy

Sv at 137 and then seared on a mini!

TEXASBGE2018

Favorite way is a reverse sear on the egg but finished in a screaming hot cast iron pan with clarified garlic butter

Ozzie_Isaac

RyanStl said:

JohnInCarolina said:

RyanStl said:

I tried SV for first time then cast iron butter sear because it was raining outside.  It wasn't as amazing as people talk about when talking SV.  I think I'm good with nothing fancy and cook direct on the BGE.

So… a couple of thoughts here.  First of all, SV isn’t always the best approach for everything.  With steaks, in my experience there are some cuts where it really shines (like filets).  But for thick ribeyes, I actually prefer the reverse sear.

But secondly, and this is just as important: sous-vide is not just a one time experiment.  With a SV cook, you need to think of time and temperature in the bath as ingredients.  Changing either can have a fairly significant impact on the final product. 

Just my $0.02

Good point, I did some large rib eye and t-bones at the same time.  The SV process took out so much juice, I felt the steaks were drier than they should have been.  The juices made awesome gravy for mashed potatoes though.  I cooked at 135 for 3 hrs. I think initially it was set to 139, but decided to lower down to 135 after 30 minutes.

Th wife was also dissatisfied I wouldn't fire up the grill when it was a steady rain.

Oof.  139.  Way way too hot.  I SV at 129 for 1-4hrs.  Then pull out of bag, pat the steak dry, let it cool down for 10-15 minutes, then sear it hard.  If I have squeamish guests I might bump temp to 131, but I find that borderline for quality.  If you bump from 129 to even 134 the juice loss difference is significant.

GrateEggspectations

RyanStl said:

I tried SV for first time then cast iron butter sear because it was raining outside.  It wasn't as amazing as people talk about when talking SV.  I think I'm good with nothing fancy and cook direct on the BGE.

For me, the advantages of SV are not only about the results, but sometimes also the process. When entertaining good friends, I often like to SV steak not because I think I’ll get a better result than with a grill, but because the long and variable cook window means I can get carried away in conversation with my guests and can then throw together dinner at a moment’s notice with a quick torch. 

RyanStl

Ozzie_Isaac said:

RyanStl said:

JohnInCarolina said:

RyanStl said:

I tried SV for first time then cast iron butter sear because it was raining outside.  It wasn't as amazing as people talk about when talking SV.  I think I'm good with nothing fancy and cook direct on the BGE.

So… a couple of thoughts here.  First of all, SV isn’t always the best approach for everything.  With steaks, in my experience there are some cuts where it really shines (like filets).  But for thick ribeyes, I actually prefer the reverse sear.

But secondly, and this is just as important: sous-vide is not just a one time experiment.  With a SV cook, you need to think of time and temperature in the bath as ingredients.  Changing either can have a fairly significant impact on the final product. 

Just my $0.02

Good point, I did some large rib eye and t-bones at the same time.  The SV process took out so much juice, I felt the steaks were drier than they should have been.  The juices made awesome gravy for mashed potatoes though.  I cooked at 135 for 3 hrs. I think initially it was set to 139, but decided to lower down to 135 after 30 minutes.

Th wife was also dissatisfied I wouldn't fire up the grill when it was a steady rain.

Oof.  139.  Way way too hot.  I SV at 129 for 1-4hrs.  Then pull out of bag, pat the steak dry, let it cool down for 10-15 minutes, then sear it hard.  If I have squeamish guests I might bump temp to 131, but I find that borderline for quality.  If you bump from 129 to even 134 the juice loss difference is significant.

The doneness came out the way I wanted, pink in the middle. It just wasn't as juicy as I expected. Still great though, but hey we driving for perfection.  Next time I'll dial it down, but thought anything under 130 should be avoided if cooking over two hours.  Next time I'll try 131. Can't believe a few degrees makes that big a difference, but apparently it does.

JohnInCarolina

RyanStl said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

RyanStl said:

JohnInCarolina said:

RyanStl said:

I tried SV for first time then cast iron butter sear because it was raining outside.  It wasn't as amazing as people talk about when talking SV.  I think I'm good with nothing fancy and cook direct on the BGE.

So… a couple of thoughts here.  First of all, SV isn’t always the best approach for everything.  With steaks, in my experience there are some cuts where it really shines (like filets).  But for thick ribeyes, I actually prefer the reverse sear.

But secondly, and this is just as important: sous-vide is not just a one time experiment.  With a SV cook, you need to think of time and temperature in the bath as ingredients.  Changing either can have a fairly significant impact on the final product. 

Just my $0.02

Good point, I did some large rib eye and t-bones at the same time.  The SV process took out so much juice, I felt the steaks were drier than they should have been.  The juices made awesome gravy for mashed potatoes though.  I cooked at 135 for 3 hrs. I think initially it was set to 139, but decided to lower down to 135 after 30 minutes.

Th wife was also dissatisfied I wouldn't fire up the grill when it was a steady rain.

Oof.  139.  Way way too hot.  I SV at 129 for 1-4hrs.  Then pull out of bag, pat the steak dry, let it cool down for 10-15 minutes, then sear it hard.  If I have squeamish guests I might bump temp to 131, but I find that borderline for quality.  If you bump from 129 to even 134 the juice loss difference is significant.

The doneness came out the way I wanted, pink in the middle. It just wasn't as juicy as I expected. Still great though, but hey we driving for perfection.  Next time I'll dial it down, but thought anything under 130 should be avoided if cooking over two hours.  Next time I'll try 131. Can't believe a few degrees makes that big a difference, but apparently it does.

Here is a result from cooking three nearly identical steaks at three different temperatures in the SV:



Look at the liquid that was expelled from the steak at 120 vs 140.  It's a huge difference.

The pic is from this article:

https://www.seriouseats.com/food-lab-complete-guide-to-sous-vide-steak

Definitely worth a read. They do speak to food safety in the article as well.  The basic guidance is that if you're using temps under 130, you shouldn't cook them more than 2.5 hrs.  

fishlessman

my preference for ribeye is 127 internal, no sousvide, just leave it out for 3 to 4 hours on the counter before cooking. strip is fine with the water bath and if i used the sousvide it would be set at 122 and  max 124 internal remove off the grill. the ribeye just needs those few extra degrees for doneness for me.  this is pretty much the only thing that im type a with

Ozzie_Isaac

RyanStl said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

RyanStl said:

JohnInCarolina said:

RyanStl said:

I tried SV for first time then cast iron butter sear because it was raining outside.  It wasn't as amazing as people talk about when talking SV.  I think I'm good with nothing fancy and cook direct on the BGE.

So… a couple of thoughts here.  First of all, SV isn’t always the best approach for everything.  With steaks, in my experience there are some cuts where it really shines (like filets).  But for thick ribeyes, I actually prefer the reverse sear.

But secondly, and this is just as important: sous-vide is not just a one time experiment.  With a SV cook, you need to think of time and temperature in the bath as ingredients.  Changing either can have a fairly significant impact on the final product. 

Just my $0.02

Good point, I did some large rib eye and t-bones at the same time.  The SV process took out so much juice, I felt the steaks were drier than they should have been.  The juices made awesome gravy for mashed potatoes though.  I cooked at 135 for 3 hrs. I think initially it was set to 139, but decided to lower down to 135 after 30 minutes.

Th wife was also dissatisfied I wouldn't fire up the grill when it was a steady rain.

Oof.  139.  Way way too hot.  I SV at 129 for 1-4hrs.  Then pull out of bag, pat the steak dry, let it cool down for 10-15 minutes, then sear it hard.  If I have squeamish guests I might bump temp to 131, but I find that borderline for quality.  If you bump from 129 to even 134 the juice loss difference is significant.

The doneness came out the way I wanted, pink in the middle. It just wasn't as juicy as I expected. Still great though, but hey we driving for perfection.  Next time I'll dial it down, but thought anything under 130 should be avoided if cooking over two hours.  Next time I'll try 131. Can't believe a few degrees makes that big a difference, but apparently it does.

The actually safety point for steaks is around 126.  However, due to variations in devices, measurements, and process they say "131".  That is for safety margin.  I check my water temp with a thermapen also.  I feel safe at 129.  Also, I am not a biologist or a doctor, but is based on this:

https://douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Safety

JohnInCarolina

Ozzie_Isaac said:

RyanStl said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

RyanStl said:

JohnInCarolina said:

RyanStl said:

I tried SV for first time then cast iron butter sear because it was raining outside.  It wasn't as amazing as people talk about when talking SV.  I think I'm good with nothing fancy and cook direct on the BGE.

So… a couple of thoughts here.  First of all, SV isn’t always the best approach for everything.  With steaks, in my experience there are some cuts where it really shines (like filets).  But for thick ribeyes, I actually prefer the reverse sear.

But secondly, and this is just as important: sous-vide is not just a one time experiment.  With a SV cook, you need to think of time and temperature in the bath as ingredients.  Changing either can have a fairly significant impact on the final product. 

Just my $0.02

Good point, I did some large rib eye and t-bones at the same time.  The SV process took out so much juice, I felt the steaks were drier than they should have been.  The juices made awesome gravy for mashed potatoes though.  I cooked at 135 for 3 hrs. I think initially it was set to 139, but decided to lower down to 135 after 30 minutes.

Th wife was also dissatisfied I wouldn't fire up the grill when it was a steady rain.

Oof.  139.  Way way too hot.  I SV at 129 for 1-4hrs.  Then pull out of bag, pat the steak dry, let it cool down for 10-15 minutes, then sear it hard.  If I have squeamish guests I might bump temp to 131, but I find that borderline for quality.  If you bump from 129 to even 134 the juice loss difference is significant.

The doneness came out the way I wanted, pink in the middle. It just wasn't as juicy as I expected. Still great though, but hey we driving for perfection.  Next time I'll dial it down, but thought anything under 130 should be avoided if cooking over two hours.  Next time I'll try 131. Can't believe a few degrees makes that big a difference, but apparently it does.

The actually safety point for steaks is around 126.  However, due to variations in devices, measurements, and process they say "131".  That is for safety margin.  I check my water temp with a thermapen also.  I feel safe at 129.  Also, I am not a biologist or a doctor, but is based on this:

https://douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Safety

This is where I point out that Baldwin is an excellent resource, and that he is also a mathematician 😎

Legume

JohnInCarolina said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

RyanStl said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

RyanStl said:

JohnInCarolina said:

RyanStl said:

I tried SV for first time then cast iron butter sear because it was raining outside.  It wasn't as amazing as people talk about when talking SV.  I think I'm good with nothing fancy and cook direct on the BGE.

So… a couple of thoughts here.  First of all, SV isn’t always the best approach for everything.  With steaks, in my experience there are some cuts where it really shines (like filets).  But for thick ribeyes, I actually prefer the reverse sear.

But secondly, and this is just as important: sous-vide is not just a one time experiment.  With a SV cook, you need to think of time and temperature in the bath as ingredients.  Changing either can have a fairly significant impact on the final product. 

Just my $0.02

Good point, I did some large rib eye and t-bones at the same time.  The SV process took out so much juice, I felt the steaks were drier than they should have been.  The juices made awesome gravy for mashed potatoes though.  I cooked at 135 for 3 hrs. I think initially it was set to 139, but decided to lower down to 135 after 30 minutes.

Th wife was also dissatisfied I wouldn't fire up the grill when it was a steady rain.

Oof.  139.  Way way too hot.  I SV at 129 for 1-4hrs.  Then pull out of bag, pat the steak dry, let it cool down for 10-15 minutes, then sear it hard.  If I have squeamish guests I might bump temp to 131, but I find that borderline for quality.  If you bump from 129 to even 134 the juice loss difference is significant.

The doneness came out the way I wanted, pink in the middle. It just wasn't as juicy as I expected. Still great though, but hey we driving for perfection.  Next time I'll dial it down, but thought anything under 130 should be avoided if cooking over two hours.  Next time I'll try 131. Can't believe a few degrees makes that big a difference, but apparently it does.

The actually safety point for steaks is around 126.  However, due to variations in devices, measurements, and process they say "131".  That is for safety margin.  I check my water temp with a thermapen also.  I feel safe at 129.  Also, I am not a biologist or a doctor, but is based on this:

https://douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Safety

This is where I point out that Baldwin is an excellent resource, and that he is also a mathematician 😎

Ted Streleski & Ted Kaczynski both mathematicians as well.

fishlessman

john wouldnt even hurt a fly

https://youtu.be/6zF4qI1oBRY

Legume

fishlessman said:

john wouldnt even hurt a fly

https://youtu.be/6zF4qI1oBRY

I think you have to be named Ted AND be a mathematician.

JohnInCarolina

Legume said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

RyanStl said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

RyanStl said:

JohnInCarolina said:

RyanStl said:

I tried SV for first time then cast iron butter sear because it was raining outside.  It wasn't as amazing as people talk about when talking SV.  I think I'm good with nothing fancy and cook direct on the BGE.

So… a couple of thoughts here.  First of all, SV isn’t always the best approach for everything.  With steaks, in my experience there are some cuts where it really shines (like filets).  But for thick ribeyes, I actually prefer the reverse sear.

But secondly, and this is just as important: sous-vide is not just a one time experiment.  With a SV cook, you need to think of time and temperature in the bath as ingredients.  Changing either can have a fairly significant impact on the final product. 

Just my $0.02

Good point, I did some large rib eye and t-bones at the same time.  The SV process took out so much juice, I felt the steaks were drier than they should have been.  The juices made awesome gravy for mashed potatoes though.  I cooked at 135 for 3 hrs. I think initially it was set to 139, but decided to lower down to 135 after 30 minutes.

Th wife was also dissatisfied I wouldn't fire up the grill when it was a steady rain.

Oof.  139.  Way way too hot.  I SV at 129 for 1-4hrs.  Then pull out of bag, pat the steak dry, let it cool down for 10-15 minutes, then sear it hard.  If I have squeamish guests I might bump temp to 131, but I find that borderline for quality.  If you bump from 129 to even 134 the juice loss difference is significant.

The doneness came out the way I wanted, pink in the middle. It just wasn't as juicy as I expected. Still great though, but hey we driving for perfection.  Next time I'll dial it down, but thought anything under 130 should be avoided if cooking over two hours.  Next time I'll try 131. Can't believe a few degrees makes that big a difference, but apparently it does.

The actually safety point for steaks is around 126.  However, due to variations in devices, measurements, and process they say "131".  That is for safety margin.  I check my water temp with a thermapen also.  I feel safe at 129.  Also, I am not a biologist or a doctor, but is based on this:

https://douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Safety

This is where I point out that Baldwin is an excellent resource, and that he is also a mathematician 😎

Ted Streleski & Ted Kaczynski both mathematicians as well.

And your point would be?!?!?

Thatgrimguy

Some of you guys like your streaks really rare. Anything under 135 turns me off.

Hook_emHornsfan_74

Thatgrimguy said:

Some of you guys like your streaks really rare. Anything under 135 turns me off.

I am with you.  I know it's blasphemy, but I am more a fan of medium.

Ozzie_Isaac

Hook_emHornsfan_74 said:

Thatgrimguy said:

Some of you guys like your streaks really rare. Anything under 135 turns me off.

I am with you.  I know it's blasphemy, but I am more a fan of medium.

I used to eat my steaks with catsup.  You should try it.

Langner91

Thatgrimguy said:

Some of you guys like your streaks really rare. Anything under 135 turns me off.

I want it cooked to the point that a good veterinarian could get it back on its feet.

When I order in a restaurant, if they ask me if I need any steak sauce, I tell them "Maybe a little aloe vera."

JohnInCarolina

Thatgrimguy said:

Some of you guys like your streaks really rare. Anything under 135 turns me off.

Hook_emHornsfan_74

Ozzie_Isaac said:

Hook_emHornsfan_74 said:

Thatgrimguy said:

Some of you guys like your streaks really rare. Anything under 135 turns me off.

I am with you.  I know it's blasphemy, but I am more a fan of medium.

I used to eat my steaks with catsup.  You should try it.

I only use catsup on the finer things like tater tots.  Sheesh.  lol

Thatgrimguy

JohnInCarolina said:

Thatgrimguy said:

Some of you guys like your streaks really rare. Anything under 135 turns me off.

That food arrow is pointing to 135. That chart is literally 125, 135, 145, 155, 165

Thatgrimguy

I mean it’s been in the fridge overnight but this is 137

JohnInCarolina

Thatgrimguy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Thatgrimguy said:

Some of you guys like your streaks really rare. Anything under 135 turns me off.

That food arrow is pointing to 135. 

I know.  I tend to shoot for 130 myself, but don't take issue with 135.  

RyanStl

JohnInCarolina said:

RyanStl said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

RyanStl said:

JohnInCarolina said:

RyanStl said:

I tried SV for first time then cast iron butter sear because it was raining outside.  It wasn't as amazing as people talk about when talking SV.  I think I'm good with nothing fancy and cook direct on the BGE.

So… a couple of thoughts here.  First of all, SV isn’t always the best approach for everything.  With steaks, in my experience there are some cuts where it really shines (like filets).  But for thick ribeyes, I actually prefer the reverse sear.

But secondly, and this is just as important: sous-vide is not just a one time experiment.  With a SV cook, you need to think of time and temperature in the bath as ingredients.  Changing either can have a fairly significant impact on the final product. 

Just my $0.02

Good point, I did some large rib eye and t-bones at the same time.  The SV process took out so much juice, I felt the steaks were drier than they should have been.  The juices made awesome gravy for mashed potatoes though.  I cooked at 135 for 3 hrs. I think initially it was set to 139, but decided to lower down to 135 after 30 minutes.

Th wife was also dissatisfied I wouldn't fire up the grill when it was a steady rain.

Oof.  139.  Way way too hot.  I SV at 129 for 1-4hrs.  Then pull out of bag, pat the steak dry, let it cool down for 10-15 minutes, then sear it hard.  If I have squeamish guests I might bump temp to 131, but I find that borderline for quality.  If you bump from 129 to even 134 the juice loss difference is significant.

The doneness came out the way I wanted, pink in the middle. It just wasn't as juicy as I expected. Still great though, but hey we driving for perfection.  Next time I'll dial it down, but thought anything under 130 should be avoided if cooking over two hours.  Next time I'll try 131. Can't believe a few degrees makes that big a difference, but apparently it does.

Here is a result from cooking three nearly identical steaks at three different temperatures in the SV:



Look at the liquid that was expelled from the steak at 120 vs 140.  It's a huge difference.

The pic is from this article:

https://www.seriouseats.com/food-lab-complete-guide-to-sous-vide-steak

Definitely worth a read. They do speak to food safety in the article as well.  The basic guidance is that if you're using temps under 130, you shouldn't cook them more than 2.5 hrs.  

Read that that's why I went with 135.  I'll go with 131 next time or less.  Steaks are already tender so I would like to retain the juice 

GrateEggspectations

JohnInCarolina said:

RyanStl said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

RyanStl said:

JohnInCarolina said:

RyanStl said:

I tried SV for first time then cast iron butter sear because it was raining outside.  It wasn't as amazing as people talk about when talking SV.  I think I'm good with nothing fancy and cook direct on the BGE.

So… a couple of thoughts here.  First of all, SV isn’t always the best approach for everything.  With steaks, in my experience there are some cuts where it really shines (like filets).  But for thick ribeyes, I actually prefer the reverse sear.

But secondly, and this is just as important: sous-vide is not just a one time experiment.  With a SV cook, you need to think of time and temperature in the bath as ingredients.  Changing either can have a fairly significant impact on the final product. 

Just my $0.02

Good point, I did some large rib eye and t-bones at the same time.  The SV process took out so much juice, I felt the steaks were drier than they should have been.  The juices made awesome gravy for mashed potatoes though.  I cooked at 135 for 3 hrs. I think initially it was set to 139, but decided to lower down to 135 after 30 minutes.

Th wife was also dissatisfied I wouldn't fire up the grill when it was a steady rain.

Oof.  139.  Way way too hot.  I SV at 129 for 1-4hrs.  Then pull out of bag, pat the steak dry, let it cool down for 10-15 minutes, then sear it hard.  If I have squeamish guests I might bump temp to 131, but I find that borderline for quality.  If you bump from 129 to even 134 the juice loss difference is significant.

The doneness came out the way I wanted, pink in the middle. It just wasn't as juicy as I expected. Still great though, but hey we driving for perfection.  Next time I'll dial it down, but thought anything under 130 should be avoided if cooking over two hours.  Next time I'll try 131. Can't believe a few degrees makes that big a difference, but apparently it does.

Here is a result from cooking three nearly identical steaks at three different temperatures in the SV:



Look at the liquid that was expelled from the steak at 120 vs 140.  It's a huge difference.

The pic is from this article:

https://www.seriouseats.com/food-lab-complete-guide-to-sous-vide-steak

Definitely worth a read. They do speak to food safety in the article as well.  The basic guidance is that if you're using temps under 130, you shouldn't cook them more than 2.5 hrs.  

That’s really interesting. Never would have guessed the difference in moisture loss would be that drastic. I usually SV steak at 127 and then torch. Always very happy with the result.  

Edit: Also, I am not squeamish, but there is something rather off-putting about a glass of steak juice. 

Langner91

The thing I always tried to tell my ex-wife is that the red juice on her plate was NOT blood.  It is NOT blood!

I should have told her it was blood.  Maybe I would have become single sooner.

RyanStl

Langner91 said:

The thing I always tried to tell my ex-wife is that the red juice on her plate was NOT blood.  It is NOT blood!

I should have told her it was blood.  Maybe I would have become single sooner.

Use your 1,000th post to tell us more about your ex. 

YouEnjoyMyEgg

Griffin said:

Sous vide for a few hours and then sear at high heat either on the Egg or the Blackstone

^ This man knows what he's doing.