Kathleen Flinn · · 12 Comments
Last night, our neighbor, Dr. Vince, invited us down for dinner. “We’re doing a competition,” Dr. Vince told Mike. “Sous vide steak vs. grilled.”
For those unfamiliar, sous vide grew from the cannon of techniques developed as part of molecular or modernist cuisine. In a nutshell: food goes into a sealed plastic bag and is then cooked in a water bath at a precise temperature, generally one much lower than used in traditional cooking and for a longer period of time. In French, sous vide means “under vacuum” or “without air.”
This is the kind of thing that Dr. Vince does when he’s not working as a medical doctor. For instance, he once invited us over to test two versions of ramen made from different flours. (Ramen made with 00 flour won out.)
How each one was cooked
We treated both steaks with a homemade dried porcini rub, plenty of sea salt and pepper. Per ChefSteps, Dr. Vince placed the sous vide steak into a plastic bag and cooked at 140F/60C for about 50 minutes. He and I cooked the grilled steak on a hot charcoal grilled, first on direct heat, then finished off the heat with the lid on. Total cooking time, about 12 minutes. Dr. Vince seared the cooked sous vide steak in a pan with some butter to brown and slightly caramelize the outside.
As sides, Mike made this potato gratin from my site, although he substituted in prosciutto for pancetta. The four of us ate nearly the entire pan. Dr. Vince’s wife, Dr. Susan, made a homemade apple pie and a side salad.
The Results
The sous vide steak had the classic even cooking throughout that the method is known for. It lost no juice in the cooking process, while the other grilled steak displayed the traditional trickles of reddish brown liquid seeping from underneath following cooking. Dr. Vince decided earlier in the day to cook the sous vide steak to just a touch medium. We aimed for the same with the grilled steak, but it turned out medium-rare.
The conclusion in sous vide steak vs. grilled? Generally inconclusive, but in this test, at least, the conventional grilled steak received slightly better marks. This might be because the sous vide version was cooked a bit past medium rare. We could taste the subtle umami of the porcini rub more clearly on the sous vide steak. We all agreed the texture was better on the sous vide steak, softer and with the solid, evenly cooked texture that you find in slow-cooked meats, such as smoked brisket or barbecued pork. The conventional steak had a bit more flavor on the exterior imparted from the caramelizing factor from the fire.
If the sous vide steak had been cooked medium rare? Or finished on the grill, instead of a crazy-hot iron skillet? I could see it beating the conventionally grilled steak. Ah, another test, another time.
This post was originally published in 2013. It has been updated.
Related
Reader Interactions
Comments
Kate saysIf it was a real test the yes both should be cooked to the same doneness on the same equipment after the sous vide. But my real comment is … Why can’t we all have neighbours like that!
Reply
- Kathleen Flinn says
Right?! I didn’t get a chance to post the ramen noodle test night. So awesome. I’ll get them up soon.
Yes, we agreed we need a repeat, this time with both cooked to medium rare. I mean, it’s not that I *want* to it, but I feel that it’s my contribution to science…
Reply
- D.T. says
Hurrah for the test! But I think your final thoughts are very valid… the experiment doesn’t seem to have been done fairly, with one cooked to medium, and one cooked to medium rare.
From personal experience, I’ve definitely found that the flavor concentration of meat from sous vide tends to be less than what can be accomplished on a traditional grill, unless you’re using a strong flavored marinade and vacuum sealing it tightly.
Sous vide’s benefit around steak is the even texture throughout (as you mentioned) allowing for perfectly cooked steak, no matter the thickness.Reply
- Kathleen Flinn says
I thought it was so interesting to taste and see them side by side. The whole process is interesting, and while I don’t think I’ll personally be investing in a sous vide machine, I can see why there’s so much enthusiasm around it.
Reply
- Max says
I just got one for “for my mom” as a gift but I’ve been using it like crazy. I’ve been reading and a lot of people say it doesn’t make quite as much of a difference with expensive cuts of meat ex. A $50 steak is gonna be pretty good no matter what but a $3-5 chop it can make the different.
Any input?
Reply
- katflinn says
Great question! I just got a sous vide recently too. I think that may be another post!
Reply
- Tom jackson says
I have had a different experience in the four years I have been using sous vide. The proof is quite simple: when you remove the vacuum bags with the steaks in from the water bath look before you open the bag and you will see several ounces of “juice” at the bottom of the bag. That is the main part of what you want Inside the steak. The souvide process has dried the steak out by about %20 and even though the steak is tender and can be browned or crusted on the barbecue you will never get the tasty fat back inside the meat. Sorry.
In many other meats, Pork, chicken, duck breasts (a favorite), turkey etc the SV delivers stellar taste.
TomReply
- Mike T says
i liked the mouth feel of the grilled steak but hated the varying texture of a grilled rare steak. What I meant is that typically on a 1 in. thick steak, the 1/4 in. or so in the middle is basically raw with a tough texture. A small section is perfectly rare then you have the gradient going outward to done at the last 1/8 in. or so. The sous vide has a different mouth feel to it but lack that grilled taste. What I have done to marry the 2 methods is to cook my steaks sous vide at 126 degrees. Then using the chimney charcoal starter as an improvised grill, I finished the steaks on it. The nice thing about the chimney starter grill is how hot it get so I am able to render the fat on the outside and get that nice char-grilled taste. only take about 1 -1:30 minutes on each side to get the nice char. the downside is you can only cook 1 steak at a time.
Reply
- Gregory says
You lost me as soon as you said 140 for 90 mins. Of course this was going to be medium by the end.
Reply
- Kathleen Flinn says
Hi Gregory,
Yeah, I wasn’t cooking that one, that was Dr. Vince. Having done many sous vide steaks since then, I always cook them to about 128F.Reply
- Nicholas says
No one experienced with sous-vide would ever dream of cooking a Ribeye at 140°F. (way too high) for only 50 minutes (ridiculously short). Do do that steak justice it needed 133°F. for 3 hours, ice bath, pat dry, then fast, hot sear.
Reply
- Kathleen Flinn says
Yeah, I don’t disagree. Having done more sous vide, I would definitely follow your lead.
Reply
