[HN Gopher] Major rule about cooking meat turns out to be wrong
___________________________________________________________________
Major rule about cooking meat turns out to be wrong
Author : voxadam
Score : 161 points
Date : 2025-07-23 19:02 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.seriouseats.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.seriouseats.com)
| sakisv wrote:
| The "major rule" in question is whether you should rest the meat
| after cooking or not.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| The major rule was resting meat for a duration of time, not
| whether or not it should be done. The article still suggests
| resting meat.
| GLdRH wrote:
| Also it's not wrong, but actually right
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Yeah makes sense, fits with how I was taught working in serious
| kitchens too. People will have different justifications for it or
| models for how it works but professional cooks generally take
| resting pretty seriously especially for bigger pieces of meat.
|
| I don't really like the article title though, the rule seems
| pretty much correct?
|
| > Carryover cooking is greatly underestimated in both its speed
| and degree, and this has a huge impact on whether resting meat
| does or does not work well.
|
| That has long been my main reason for doing it and my guide for
| how long to rest. Until the carryover has nearly or just stopped
| and the internal temp is about to or has just begun dropping. For
| thin skirt steak or grilled shrimp this could be about as long as
| it takes to walk inside, for a pork shoulder or standing rib
| roast it might be nearly an hour.
|
| Also long been understood that there's no benefit to resting sous
| vide meat, since there's no carryover to manage.
| tptacek wrote:
| Note that a major point in this article is a pretty serious
| team of cooks (the Meathead folks are competition BBQ people)
| arguing _against_ resting (but cooking in such a way that
| resting doesn 't matter).
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Yeah I just clicked through and realized I've read that
| article several times over the years. It's old and quite well
| known in certain parts of the food world. Now that I know
| that, is there anything new in this serious eats one? Is it
| just a verification of the meathead OG?
| tptacek wrote:
| It's kind of a counterpoint to it! Meathead actively
| advocates against resting; Gritzer argues for a cooking
| method that relies on carryover time and thus resting to
| slice at target temps. Both Meathead and Gritzer agree that
| moisture retention is _not_ the reason to rest, and since
| there 's a lot of pop science out there (complete with
| animations and physical models) for why moisture loss
| demands resting, it seems worth writing about.
|
| Gritzer actually ran a relatively serious tasting
| experiment for this article, though I'm not sure how much
| it mattered to the point he's making.
| pitpatagain wrote:
| It is not. Much of the SE article is about testing a newer
| hypothesis that the amount of juice loss on slicing is
| entirely explained by the temp of the meat at the moment of
| slicing, and that the various other explanations for what
| resting does are irrelevant.
|
| The meathead article argues: - Resting doesn't change
| perceived juiciness the way you think it does. - Meat that
| you will slice on your plate continues cooking on plate. -
| Therefore recommends just cook to temp and dive in and
| don't do any traditional rest.
|
| The Serious Eats article: - Tests the temp at slicing
| theory. - Says this means that appropriate resting time
| _only_ has to do with aligning the carryover cook time with
| the temp you brought it to while cooking with the temp it
| will be at slicing - Suggests that the real benefit of
| resting is that it is easier to time and stick the landing
| with desired temp because of the gradual glide at the end -
| Therefore recommends: Using a rest, but shorter than
| traditional, just long enough as appropriate for temp
| control.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| The resting hysteria in low and slow BBQ has gotten out of
| control. Many BBQ YouTubers now promote overnight resting,
| I've even seen some suggesting a two day rest. I'm glad to
| see some sanity returning.
| tptacek wrote:
| Hold up, the Meathead thing wasn't about low-and-slow. For
| brisket and shoulder, Meathead wants you to rest _for an
| hour_ in an insulated container.
| GLdRH wrote:
| the slower the cook, the better the beef optimal is 40degC
| for three weeks
| huhtenberg wrote:
| > the Meathead folks
|
| Meathead is a singular dude who runs amazingribs.com. Wrote a
| good book too [1].
|
| [1] https://www.amazon.com/Meathead-Science-Great-Barbecue-
| Grill...
| tptacek wrote:
| The book is great; the writing we're talking about though
| is multiple people's work (Goldwyn and Greg Blonder).
| logifail wrote:
| Clickbait title much?
| ackfoobar wrote:
| TLDR: Resting is about carry over cooking (which raises the
| internal temperature more than you expect) than juice retention.
| cyberax wrote:
| If you're skilled enough (and if you use a meat thermometer)
| you can use carry-over cooking to your advantage by removing
| meat slightly earlier.
| ackfoobar wrote:
| Well, a lot earlier. I pull my steak out of the pan when it
| reaches 45C internally.
| kelnos wrote:
| Yes, the article points out that this is what you should be
| doing: removing heat 5-15F below your target temperature
| (varies greatly depending on the meat type and cut and
| thickness) and allowing carryover cooking to bring it to your
| target.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Young offers a different and credible explanation for the
| juice loss observed by many. It 's not caused by whether or not
| meat is rested, but by the internal temperature of the meat at
| the moment it's sliced. According to Young, it comes down to
| vapor pressure: The hotter the meat, the more energy the internal
| moisture has, leading to higher vapor pressure that pushes liquid
| outward when the meat is cut._
|
| So... you want to rest to bring the temperature down before
| slicing. The rule about resting isn't wrong in practice, it just
| had an incorrect explanation as to why it works.
|
| > _But my 1.5-inch-thick chops completely defied this: Even when
| I pulled one a full 15degF before hitting its target temperature
| of 140degF, it had reached 140degF and threatened to surpass it
| in under three minutes. Follow the conventional resting advice,
| and in many cases, you 're going to blow right past your target
| temp._
|
| This article is conflating different things. Obviously, don't
| overcook your protein. The best way to guarantee this is with
| sous vide. But in any case, the conclusion isn't to avoid
| resting. It's to pull the meat earlier to avoid overcooking, and
| then rest for the reason explained at the start of this comment.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| You're restating points the author makes as if they were
| contradictions. They're very explicit at the end in particular.
| crazygringo wrote:
| They are contradictions. Let me be clearer, citing the end:
|
| > _The bottom line is this: It 's a good idea to pull meat
| early from the pan or oven and let it rest, but only long
| enough to give it the time to slide up via carryover cooking
| to the target internal temperature, which you need to track
| closely._
|
| Wrong. You need to let it slide up _and then slide back
| down_. The target internal temperature is for doneness. It 's
| too high for slicing, very often.
|
| > _What resting is not: a fixed amount of time for the meat
| to sit, which risks it overcooking and losing its crust. Once
| again, it 's all about temperature, not time._
|
| This is a strawman. You've always rested meat until the
| temperature came down. The reason it takes time is because
| time is what brings the temperature down. The fix is not to
| not rest, it is to not overcook in the first place.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _It 's too high for slicing, very often._
|
| What does that mean? Why is a particular temperature better
| or worse for slicing?
|
| If it's juice retention, that is, lower temp = more
| retention, then the article seems to agree with this, but
| argues that juice retention isn't particularly important
| when it comes to final taste.
| reactordev wrote:
| They mention that in the article if you read it. Thermal
| pressure forcing vapor.
| reactordev wrote:
| > _Wrong. You need to let it slide up and then slide back
| down._
|
| This is correct. Pulling the meat early means it will
| continue to cook while resting until the temperature comes
| down. It may slide up, but what you absolutely shouldn't do
| is pull it early, wait 5 Mississippi, then cut into it. It
| needs to cool down at least 20 degrees C. 50 degree F.
| Still hot but won't burn your fingers if touched. Put on
| some latex gloves, and cut away...
| andrewflnr wrote:
| The article makes (or at least repeats uncritically) the
| same point about letting temperature come down. Ctrl-F
| "vapor pressure". It's just not in that exact sentence you
| picked out (where it's arguably still implied, since you're
| not going to eat meat still at cooking temperature). As for
| the second point: it's not a strawman. The version I heard
| years ago was the one about needing time for chemical
| changes that soak up the juice in the muscle fibers or
| whatever, not plain temperature.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Didn't take long for the sous vide zealots to appear. We get
| it.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| Highly clickbait title. The conclusion is that you rest meat
| because it keeps it juicy and lets it finish carry-over cooking.
| This is already the common wisdom. The only new part is a
| different explanation for _why_ resting makes it more juicy.
| jdlshore wrote:
| No, the article concluded that resting meat does _not_
| influence juiciness. In the blind test the author ran, the
| tasters could not identify a difference in juiciness between
| rested and unrested meat.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Do you cook steak? I do, multiple times a week (my kids love
| it). If you cut it right away, you end up with a pool of meat
| juice. If you wait a few minutes, you don't.
|
| I call bullshit. Resting the meat keeps the juice inside.
| This is objectively the case, whether or not some blind taste
| test agrees. (I'm not even sure why a blind test is relevant
| here...)
| jdlshore wrote:
| I'm talking about the article, not my (or your) experience
| cooking. The points you raise are addressed in the article,
| which is very thoughtful and thorough.
| kelnos wrote:
| No, cutting into the meat when it's at a particular
| temperature determines how much juice spills out, not how
| long you've rested it. Yes, resting it changes the cutting
| temperature (acknowledged by the article), but that's not
| really the point being made or the effect being
| investigated.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| Based on my experience this is incorrect.
|
| Cooking to, say, a medium-rare and cutting in right away
| will spill a lot of juice, whereby cooking to below
| medium-rare and letting it get to the medium-rare temp
| will leak hardly anything. It's dead simple to reproduce
| and obvious in practice.
|
| I am aware of what SeriousEats is, but this particular
| article is sensationalist and was written for clicks.
| ksenzee wrote:
| Did you read the article? This is absolutely addressed.
| "Resting the meat keeps the juice inside" is obviously
| correct and he is not arguing against that point. The
| question is whether there is another way to keep the juice
| inside.
| ackfoobar wrote:
| In Chris Young's video, the suggestion is to stop carry over
| cooking by slicing the meat when the internal temperature
| reaches the target temperature.
|
| A corollary to that is that if the meat is closer to target
| temperature when it leaves the pan, you should rest the meat
| for less time. I don't think this is part of the conventional
| wisdom.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Which is a bizarre suggestion.
|
| You don't slice individual portions of meat before serving.
| If I order a pork chop or a ribeye at a restaurant, I'd be
| horrified if it came pre-sliced.
|
| And for something like an entire roast, you want to slice
| shortly before serving so it doesn't get too cold.
|
| Just account for carry-over cooking and cook it less
| initially, or sous vide.
| adastra22 wrote:
| If you order a steak salad, it will always come pre-sliced.
| crazygringo wrote:
| A steak salad isn't a steak. ;)
| adastra22 wrote:
| > You don't slice individual portions of meat before
| serving.
|
| There are many, many instances where you do.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Not in the context of what this article is talking about.
| Not for pork chops. Not for ribeyes.
| antinomicus wrote:
| I think there are plenty of dishes that have pre sliced
| pork chops or rib eyes. The exception, sure. But it would
| not be hard to find even one example where this is not a
| rule. Your position is too brittle to take seriously.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Your comment is like saying 2+2 isn't 4 because it's not
| true in base 3.
|
| The context of the article is obvious. It's about things
| like steaks and chops served in an American/European
| style.
|
| Saying that they can technically be served sliced is to
| miss the point entirely. This isn't about stir-fry or
| salads.
| ackfoobar wrote:
| I agree that his suggestion is more applicable to home
| cooks than restaurants.
| kelnos wrote:
| No, the conclusion is that the specific act of resting has no
| bearing on juiciness. The juice spillage depends on the
| temperature the meat is when you slice it.
|
| Resting of course does lower the temperature, which reduces
| juice spillage, but a) that's a secondary effect, and b) blind
| tasters turned out to not know the difference between meat that
| lost more or less juice due to cutting at a higher or lower
| temperature, so it probably doesn't matter.
|
| Carryover cooking is what matters, and we should care much more
| about what temperature we allow the meat to rise to after
| removing heat, because we will overcook the meat if we allow it
| to come to the target temperature (or even within 10-15F of it,
| depending on meat/cut/thickness) before removing heat. The
| article advocates for removing heat much earlier than most
| people probably do.
| jsbg wrote:
| > The only new part is a different explanation for why resting
| makes it more juicy.
|
| Even that is not new. I've known this for long enough that I
| don't remember where I learned it.
| jerf wrote:
| This is sort of a neat microcosm of the story of the interaction
| of science and engineering over time.
|
| The original meat resting rules were essentially engineering,
| when it is forced to run significantly in advance of science, in
| this case due to lack of sufficiently accurate measurement tools
| (instant-read themometers that can be left in the meat). They
| were discovered ad-hoc. They worked. But the theories behind them
| turned out to be incorrect.
|
| Thermometers improved, the ability to control the cooking
| environment improved, and experiments could be run that
| contradicted the old theories about why it worked, and led to an
| improved methodology that could be used with more equipment.
|
| This in turns leads to engineering better meals, even if only
| from the point of view of doing somewhat less work to the same
| result.
|
| And the wheel will keep turning.
| tptacek wrote:
| Interesting take, true-ish I think? But Meathead had this
| right, as I recall from first principles (his writing partner
| at the time was a physicist), I think without the measurement
| apparatus.
| rsyring wrote:
| Yep, way back in 2013:
|
| https://amazingribs.com/more-technique-and-science/more-
| cook...
| brudgers wrote:
| _microcosm of the story of the interaction of science and
| engineering over time._
|
| Science requires measurement. Engineering requires cost benefit
| analysis.
|
| Rules for resting meat are more like religion than science or
| engineering...resting meat is a morality play of socially
| acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Eating without resting is
| labeled crass because it is the sort of thing a starving
| peasant might do.
|
| That's how the results can be contrary to tradition.
| charlie0 wrote:
| Great article! Though it's sure to ruffle some feathers, it's no
| tabs vs spaces debate.
| thrill wrote:
| Since it's a great article, I'm sure it was written using vi.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| This is just a long ad for the predictive thermometer that every
| two-bit YouTube cook is pedalling at the moment.
| tptacek wrote:
| No it isn't, and everyone is talking about those thermometers
| (there's a couple competing ones, all of them are leave-in,
| liquid and oven-safe, and have an array of sensors instead of
| just one) because they rule a lot and because Chris Young is a
| pretty outstanding presenter.
| StillBored wrote:
| They should be weighing the final cuts rather than trying to
| quantify the amount of fluid on the plate. Otherwise they are
| simply failing to account for the amount of water that is
| evaporating away. And given how much my food steams while
| cooling, its not a trivial amount.
| jsbg wrote:
| try reducing a sauce and you'll see how much energy it takes to
| actually evaporate "not a trivial amount"
| gabrielsroka wrote:
| Chris does that in the video that is linked in the article,
| iirc.
|
| Fun fact, Chris's co-author is Nathan Myhrvold.
| post_break wrote:
| Sous Vide taught me resting meet was a farce. There's zero rest
| time when cooking that way, and it causes the meat, especially
| steak, to come out perfect every single time. There's a reason
| why it's pretty much banned in most cooking competitions.
| tptacek wrote:
| What cooking competitions ban sous-vide/low-temp cooking?
| post_break wrote:
| Pretty much all rib cooking competitions ban it.
| tptacek wrote:
| I would be shocked if you could win a rib competition with
| sous vide ribs. I've done them a bunch of times. They're
| fine. They're not revelatory.
| post_break wrote:
| I mean it's not unheard of:
| https://kbindependent.org/2023/04/17/after-sous-vide-
| controv...
| tptacek wrote:
| Yeah, I acknowledge that low-temp is banned in a lot of
| competition BBQ. Weird! But ok!
| freddie_mercury wrote:
| Then why the need to ban it?
| tptacek wrote:
| I don't know! Apparently I'm just wrong about this! For
| the record, I'm just expressing surprise, not trying to
| refute the claim.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Weird. Most cooking is about temperature control. Funny
| thing to ban the technique which is so effective.
| tptacek wrote:
| That a sous vide rack of ribs could win a competition to
| me speaks to the artificiality of competition BBQ.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Yes? It lowers the degree of difficulty tremendously.
|
| And most people, even bbq judges, probably can't taste
| the difference between a sous vide with smoke finish and
| a full smoker preparation.
|
| But bbq competitions are about making the best ribs the
| same way car racing is about going around an oval the
| fastest. Equipment rules matter more than bare outcomes.
| tptacek wrote:
| I get what you're saying but I don't just mean that it's
| unsporting or defeats the purpose of the conversation,
| but rather that it suggests the outcomes are judged on a
| rubric that doesn't capture what makes extremely good BBQ
| good, but rather basic textural and visual things. Like,
| Green Street in Chicago is, IIRC, combi-cooked before
| it's smoked; it's also just OK.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| I think we probably disagree on the impact of the sous
| vide preparation then.
|
| Green street is just ok for lots of reasons. I don't
| think the sous vide is one of them.
| tptacek wrote:
| Interesting. You've had sous vide BBQ where you were
| like, "this is as good as anything I've ever had"?
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Yes. By people who compete in bbq competitions. I'd also
| argue that most smoker designs are a matter of tradition
| and competition rules, not outcomes.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Food judging will always be subjective. Famously wine
| tasting is mostly just pretentious bunk.
|
| That's why silly things like plating often matter more in
| a restaurant than actual taste.
| jfengel wrote:
| The law applies to cooking as well as programming: any
| metric that becomes a target ceases to be a valid metric.
| davidcbc wrote:
| A car could win a bike race too
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| I naively thought it was about delivering the best plate
| of food, regardless of equipment and technique. A "rib"
| competition, not a "smoker" competition.
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| If they're trying to measure skill, I can understand the
| rationale. The competition is more of a spectacle than an
| attempt at finding the most reliable and best tasting rib
| making process.
|
| Imagine a glassblowing competition where participants
| were judged on how consistently they could make a certain
| piece. The people using moulds would end up winning, and
| they would do so with a fraction of the skill and effort.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| I wonder if it's banned simply because it doesn't feel
| enough like BBQ. Similar to why FIA banned CVTs in
| racing. It's kind of arbitrary but also I get it. Racing
| and BBQ have culture behind them, and dare I say 'vibes'
| that their practitioners will want to retain.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| I would be a bit disappointed if I went to a BBQ and saw
| them pull up a big tub of water in which they dumped the
| meat. My caveman brain wants to see fire.
| inasio wrote:
| I've also heard that sous-vide is typically banned in BBQ
| competitions. A quick google search did find some examples to
| support it:
|
| https://www.texoassociation.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2023/09/O...
| nkrisc wrote:
| > There's a reason why it's pretty much banned in most cooking
| competitions.
|
| In what competitions is it banned? There's a lot more to an
| award winning plate than just a perfectly cooked steak.
|
| If you mean those TV shows, then I would speculate it has more
| to do with being slow and boring to watch.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| Compared to a gas stove flaring up in streams of salty meat
| juice you can imagine a tremendous difference in audience
| appeal.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| I work with someone who does national steak cooking
| competitions to the level where he has sponsorships. They sous
| vide.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| Resting meat is needed if you don't use sous vide, because of
| the temperature differential in the inside and surface.
| reddit_clone wrote:
| I am really interested in Sous Vide cooking. But cooking meat
| in plastic bags turns me off.
| lizardking wrote:
| You don't need to rest slow cooked meat. That's the difference
| jeffbee wrote:
| Well it's great that they are writing down reasons for resting
| that aren't total nonsense. The old folk wisdom about resting for
| the juice never survived any amount of critical thinking. But,
| it's unfortunate that they've still fallen short of learning
| anything about heat transfer, because they still aren't
| mentioning anything about the conditions under which the meat
| rests. The air temperature, the material the meat is resting
| upon, and the initial temperature, size, and other properties of
| that material are going to make a large difference in the
| outcome.
| tuna74 wrote:
| Just a random tip: When I rest meat I put it on a mesh and keep
| it in the oven set to 50 degrees Celsius. That have given me
| pretty good results I feel and then you can finish off whatever
| else you want to do after cooking the meat (like vegetables or
| sauce from the same pan).
| comrade1234 wrote:
| So I just let it sit on a cutting board for five minutes before I
| slice it or I put it in an ice bath like a molecular gastronomist
| weirdo and slice it 4 minutes earlier?
| bigbuppo wrote:
| Unless you get some enjoyment from being a weirdo, don't do the
| weirdo molecular gastronomist crap. I mean, it may be fun to
| figure out how to make water gravy, but if you try that with my
| hamburger steak you're getting tossed out like DJ Jazzy Jeff.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| The problem with the ice bath is that you'll have to deal with
| carryover cooling when you take it out to slice it.
| GLdRH wrote:
| I only eat fresh-frozen steak from seasoned cutting boards
| Aeroi wrote:
| my take away after wasting minutes of my life reading this is
| that you remove meat slightly sooner, rest for 5-6 minutes. that
| way juice is retained and internal temperature is on target when
| sliced.
| rsyring wrote:
| The article makes it clear it's not about retaining juice.
|
| It is about internal temp and managing carryover cooking.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| Something that has always sounded really stupid to me about
| resting meat could be summed up by asking, "Are all of you people
| seriously letting your freshly cooked food get cold for a quarter
| of an hour before eating it?"
|
| I might be able to understand if you unintentionally rested meat
| because you poorly timed the finish of sides, but as soon as food
| is cooked, it should be served hot immediately, preferably with
| warmed plates from the oven if it wasn't in use for your cook.
|
| Completely asinine to me that people are letting food sit to get
| cold before eating it.
| bootsmann wrote:
| Its not really getting cold, a big part of the resting is about
| the internal temperature increasing (at the cost of the outside
| dropping from 80 to 50 celsius, which is still more than warm
| enough)
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| tldr: Resting meat after cooking is traditionally believed to
| retain juices and enhance flavor. However, new evidence suggests
| this isn't true. Resting doesn't affect juice retention; instead,
| it helps manage carryover cooking, allowing the meat to reach its
| target temperature without overcooking.
|
| This is not news to anyone who actually cooks and knows how.
| (prepared for the downvotes for sounding snobbish but idk how
| else to say it)
| metabagel wrote:
| The article actually doesn't refute the idea of resting meat to
| retain the juices. In fact, it supports it. It just provides a
| reason for why this works which is perhaps different than
| conventional wisdom.
|
| Retaining the juices in the meat has to do with the temperature
| at which the meat is cut. Resting allows the temperature to drop,
| which creates less pressure, so the juices aren't forced out of
| the meat nearly as strongly.
|
| The title is click-bait. The major rule is correct, not wrong.
| But, now we know a little bit more about why this rule works.
|
| > As the meat rests (and therefore cools) that vapor pressure
| decreases, and so does the juice loss. It's not about
| reabsorption or thickening as the juices cool, which is another
| common explanation that's been offered over the years. It's
| simply about pressure. Control for final internal temperature,
| and--rested or not--the juice loss is the same.
| dataviz1000 wrote:
| "Searing the meat seals in the juices" -- every chef on every
| cooking show.
|
| Can we do a study on that too?
|
| hmmmmm. I want to grill two steaks, the same size, and to the
| same internal temperature on the same grill. Let one rest for ten
| minutes in a pie pan and cut the other into 4 pieces letting it
| also rest for ten minutes in a pie pan. Probably also wrap them
| in tinfoil. Then weigh the released juices at the end.
|
| There is a huge difference between eating a steak that has rested
| allowing the vapor pressure decrease vs one that hasn't rested
| even though the internal temperatures in the middle are the same.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Real cooks know the point of the sear is to create browning
| (maillard). Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't understand
| or is just speaking to a basic audience
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-23 23:00 UTC)