/ck/ - Food & Cooking

Steaks turn out worse when sous vided.
Use it for cheap meats and offal.
Pork brains are the best.

It's a steak boiling unitasker for soy cucks

>>11665894
I've seen chasu pork recipes that use it, try that maybe.

My understanding of it is that it's just a fancy slow cooker, so I imagine you can use it for any meat you want to be nice and tender

>>11665894
*Leeches plastic into your food*

It's nothing personal kiddo

>>11665894
dumbass.

>>11665894
>boiling
Always destined to fail, retard.

>>11665894
It's mainly good for cuts of beef and poultry. With poultry you can properly pasteurize the meat without raising it to the usual 165F so you can get much moister poultry with a sous vide

>>11665894
you can hardboil eggs to the exact consistency you want them to be lol.

I use it to confit meat sometimes.

>>11665894
>custard
>ice cream
>hollandaise
>soft boiled eggs
>firm fleshed fish
>root vegetables
>pork tenderloin
>chicken breast
>other cuts of beef not just steak
>faux bbq (sous vide to soften and temp then broil at high heat with sauce/dry rub for crust - I do this with ribs, brisket, etc)
You can cook probably almost anything with it.

>>11666039
>>11666073
>>11666085
>>11665900
Look, I understand that new technology scares and upsets you, and it can be daunting to realize you weren't even at par before, and that with new emerging techniques you become an even comparatively worse cook with every passing day, but not everything new is automatically bad, ignorant plebs.

curl your hair

>>11665894
May I suggest you download the Joule app for an assortment of recipes and the visual done ness meter

You can make faggot sauce to help you come out of the closet

>>11665894
You can use it to heat normal things up. Try making hollandaise with it.

>>11666287
How is it a good appliance at all?
How is boiling meat in a bag for hours better than just grilling it?
On top of that you still have to sear the meat anyway lmao.
Its pointless neo cooking

>>11666287
Hollandaise seems like a great idea, I'll try that.

>>11666307
>boiling
Well, it's not boiling meat, so there's your first problem, my little brainlet. Water doesn't boil until 212F/100C.
Using sous vide is holding food at the temperature you wish it to end at for an extended period of time while the food is vacuum sealed to avoid any loss of juice and flavor. It is, in principle, like confit, but more like being able to confit food in its own fat without having to render the fat/cook the food first.
If you like your meat roasted dry and hard over a fire like a caveman, by all means, just stay on that road. The fine, subtle flavor and texture of cuisine is lost on you.

>>11666315
I love my sous vide for eggs because you can't possibly overcook or accidentally scramble them. I make creme anglaise in mine all the time and might actually be doing so overnight tonight for my brandied pear tarte tatin tomorrow.

>>11666335
>muh semantics
Oh its a soy cuck. Enjoy your shitty bag boiled meat that you have to still sear after

>>11666335
Also I’m a major faggot guys. Forgot to add that part. Let me know if I can suck anyone’s dick while I boil all of my food.

>>11666307
The original point of it is not that the food is in a bad but that it's vacuum sealed. People who use just a sandwich bag are morons. As the thing heats, the vacuum effect naturally pulls the flavors of the stuff you're using as a marinade into the center of the meat while gently cooking it. It takes a while though.

Using a sandwich bag is shitting doofus tier. The name "sous vide" literally means "under vacuum". Even in spite of the goddamn name though, morons are unrelenting in their ass-hatted niggerings and they think le magic heating stick is what's doing all the work.

>>11666345
>>11666347
Why are you so upset? Is it because you can't afford nice things like sous vide? Are you averse to putting in actual work and time toward achieving good cuisine? Again, if all you can grasp with your tiny angry mind is "fire hot make food hot" then by all means, keep scorching your food to inedible char. The rest of us who can figure out how to use new technologies are over here enjoying succulent food the likes of which a cretin like you could never produce.

You have no reason to dislike it other than that it's popular on 4chan to hate a sous vide because m-muh soy meme m-muh fragile male ego pissing contest. How does it feel to have a dick so tiny you feel intimidated and emasculated by a kitchen appliance?

Why do nu males like to boil meat in bags so much bros?

>>11666350
Also I forgot to add that I’m gay. Sois vide helps me have more time to eat my boyfriends ass instead of doing dumb shit like cooking my food on a grill.

>>11666350
the vacuum seal is just to reduce the air barrier between the conductive liquid to the product. using a ziplock bag and displacement method achieves the same thing as a vacuum seal, especially if you already have a marinade as the liquid fills in air pockets naturally.

a vacuum sealer is necessary though if you sous vide a irregular shaped object, like vegetables or a bunch of small items in one bag. but again, you can overcome this if you fill in the gaps with a liquid like oil.

>>11666373
>>11666374
>it's another decrepit old boomer can only be seen using a manly Republican American man grill or else he's a communist and a faggot episode
Oh boy, never get tired of watching geriatric insecurity.

>>11665894
>What else can I make with this thing?
https://recipes.anovaculinary.com/
https://www.chefsteps.com/gallery?tag=Sous%20Vide

>>11666371
That shit isnt even expensive what are you talking about. It's just a waste of money. You are already seething. All the plastic must have made you emotional

>>11666384
>t. Faggot

>>11666379
right out of the gate, found one immediately.

This is the problem with people. It's not just that they're stupid. It's the militant nature of their stupidity.

>>11666392
hrm, you seem like an angry fella. why so upset?

>>11666384
This, I sous vide my avocado while my wife is out with her boyfriend. Only ten hours for a perfectly tender avocado, I just play my switch while waiting. When my wife arrives I just pan fry it and serve it to her. It's pretty based, I would hate to be a non progressive man, grow up, get a sous vide machine!

>>11666390
It's a waste of money if you don't like nice things, that's for sure, because the whole point of sous vide is to get extravagantly delicious food.
If it didn't work and work well, filling an empty niche in the home kitchen, running in all kinds of commercial kitchens, etc why would it be so popular? You're the one "seething" going on an insane name-calling rave over people liking things you don't like.
Check into that home any day now, gramps, the dementia is really setting in.

>>11666402
Lol u mad

>>11666402
>t. Soy boy beta cuck

>>11666402
>extravagantly delicious food
Bag boiled beef definitely isn't that

Sous vide is agreat way to guarantee the perfect steak everytime. If youre good enough a cook to get that result without sous vide good for you.
I love my sous vide and eat way more beef since i bought it.

>>11666039
Make sure to only use non-BPA plastics

>>11666494
>t. Shit cook

>>11666494
Sounds like a shitty shortcut for incompetent cooks that takes longer and is more wasteful

>>11666392
Great I just wasted $100 on a water warmer now I need to throw more money at a vacuum sealer

>>11665894
We made our Christmas ham in one of those bad boys
Super fucking tastey, probably going to be the only way to do it from now on

>>11666405 w o w
>>11666427 s a m e
>>11666428 f a g

>>11666532
>t. Autist

>>11666502
>>11666517
This desu.

But im okay with that.

>>11666534
Mad

>>11666528
i can't imagine that being good at all
isn't the best part of a ham the glaze?

>>11666579
I can't speak for that anon, but generally speaking you only use sous vide for the main cooking. you still glaze or sear the food afterward in a separate step.

>>11666599
sounds like a massive waste of time and space

>>11666494
>Make sure to only use non-BPA plastics
This changes nothing, there are still similar and even worse chemicals being leached that disrupt hormones.

>>11666606
There are plastics that are okay. Dont know the english term.

>>11666718
https://www.bonappetit.com/story/plastic-bag-safety-sous-vide
https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/environmental-toxins/sous-vide-popular-way-put-plastic-straight-food/
Nope.

the guys hating on this are probably the type of people who cook everything on a single, crusty cast iron pan.

>>11666723
Fuck.
Can't I have something nice?

>>11666870
one provides an essential nutrient for strength and healthy blood, the other provides synthetic bitch tit hormones

Is there any way to do this shit without plastic or silicone bags? I'd like to not become a woman

>>11666335
>scrambling an anglaise, ever. The staple of baking that takes maybe 10 minutes to the uninitiated.

Jesus fuck man, I like sous vide, but at this point you're proving the other guys right. That's absolutely bottom of the barrel in terms of skills and it shows. Also you shouldn't even be making anglaise or zambaione with it, you lose volume and it comes out sub-par

>>11666885
I mean it's probably ok once in a while. What I've never understood is why people don't just aluminum foil instead?

>>11666925
is it even possible to conduct heat quickly enough to be safe cooking with that though?

I keep posting this in every thread, delicious pink meat for real cunnysseurs.

It's retard proof, saves your oven/stove for other things to cook. In the end, you save time and effort.

>>11666925
>What I've never understood is why people don't just aluminum foil instead?

For sous-vide? The problem with foil is that you can't seal it into a watertight container. I know you have seen foil pouches at the supermarket, but those are really plastic with a foil layer inside. The part touching the food is still plastic. Besides, if you're nuts enough to sperg out about muh plastic then wouldn't you also sperg out over muh aluminum?

>>11666948
>t's retard proof, saves your oven/stove for other things to cook. In the end, you save time and effort.

this. It's also very easy to portion food up in advance. That is helpful for budgeting, planning, and convenience. You can package meats with their marinades & seasonings then freeze. When you'e ready to cook just grab out of the freezer and go. Have an extra guest for dinner? No problem, grab an extra pouch.

>>11666948
>have to sear it afterwards
>saves you space
Lol

>>11666963
>Saves time
>Over an hour to cook a steak

>>11666963
>he serves twice frozen then boiled in a bag meat to his guests
Yikes, might as well just throw a bag of doritos at them to eat, very disrespectful

>>11666350
>the vacuum effect naturally pulls the flavors of the stuff you're using as a marinade into the center of the meat
stop talking out of your ass

>>11666976
you can do other things during that time, retard.You dont have to stand there for an hour and watch over it.

>>11667051
Wanna know how I know youre a neet?

Why do incels hate fire so much? Dont you realize how ridiculous it is to boil shit in a bag?

>>11666963
Oh yeah, the thawing is great. Throw in frozen chicken breasts with seasoning, fry, wahlah.

>>11666974
MAPP torch.

I'm returning mine to Target, I can literally make the same food with my stove

>>11666953
why not wrap the meat in foil, then put it in plastic?

>>11667109
Wrap the meat in another meat and then put that in the plastic. After your meat is sufficiently boiled discard the outer meat and Wala, now it's time to cook the meat over a flame

>>11667109
Just wrap the meat in another meat before putting it into the plastic. Then once your meat is sufficiently discard the outer meat. Wala, now it's time to cook your meat over a flame.

>>11667123
>boiled
but its not boiled its heated?
just like when you put the meat in the fridge
unless... do you consider refrigeration freezing?

>>11665894
turkey heh

>>11667132
Why do you type like a...faggot?

>>11667141
Its a typical sous vide user

>>11667132
>its only boiling when it reaches the boiling point
Stop being so pedantic

>>11667141
holy shit you do! ahahahahaha, these tard thinks heat to 145, is boiling, and cooling to 46f is freezing what a fucking idiot holy shit

>>11667150
Cope! Many such cases! So sad.

>>11667149
>its only boiling when it reaches the boiling point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

sous vide is extra work, but it's so nice to grab a steak out of the freezer (already in a vacuum bag) and throw it in for a quick defrost and cook in about an hour. i like to live in the moment and don't want to take food out of the freezer in advance because what if i dont want steak the next day, you know?

>>11667150
Youre, still, doing it. Stop being a faggot and type properly

Will sous-vide damage my countertops, pic related? Not going to cook anything above 135 or 140 for an hour or two. If not, what do I put under the pot/container?

>>11667162
>Youtube link instead of webbum
Just wow I cant even

>>11667165
kek sure let me take typing advice from a guy that doesn't understand how temperature works

>>11667169
just a cloth or towel if you're worried about it

>>11667172
See was that so hard? I knew you could do it

>>11667169
It clips onto the pot, not the side of the counter.

IM TAKING THIS PIECE OF SHIT BACK TOMORROW

>>11666963
>he doesn’t buy fresh ingredients for his guests that come by his personal invitation
Jesus Christ why not ask them to just bring a pizza on the way over. I mean you’re already providing what I can assume is a great night of conversation. How much more do they want from you?!

>>11667193
i literally didn't change anything retard

>>11667217
the trick is to sous vide then use the air fryer

>>11667217
now put it in a searing hot pain about 15 to 30 secs on each side

https://www.greatbritishchefs.com/collections/sous-vide-recipes

>>11665894
cook your steak like real men

>>11665894
when you realize that you can get a comparable reverse-seared steak cooked in 7 minutes, the 1.5 hour wait for sous vide becomes tiring.

but:
root vegetables
tough cuts of meat cooked for a very long time
perfectly temper chocolate
use it to make homemade mozzarella

>>11667234
Heh

>>11666335
t.

>>11666307
>>11666287 is right, though. Grilling meat is fine and can produce some excellent results. I like really thick steaks, though (like, two-inch thick, bone-in ribeyes), and it's just not possible to get the same, perfect cook with a grill as it is with a sous vide.

Cooking a steak with a grill (or any other conventional method) cooks the outside of the steak, first, and continues to cook the outside of the meat while the heat slowly penetrates through. If I want a medium-rare steak, by the time I've achieved medium-rare in the half-inch center of meat, there's a quarter-inch of medium sandwiching that on both sides, then a quarter-inch of medium-well, then well-done, before the char. I can turn down the heat, cook it slowly, and achieve less gradation, but I'll, also, have drier meat.

The sous vide requires you to vacuum pack the steak, post salting, first (which, if you use anything but dollar store bags, there's no problem). Then, I set the sous vide to heat the water to, say 130F. Once it's heated the water, I place the steak in and leave it for... pretty much until I'm ready, since it can't overcook the steak (it will never get above 130F). Also, since the steak can't get above 130F, once it's cooked through, the whole steak (from the outer edges to the very center) are at a perfect medium-rare with absolutely no gradation. I'll throw it on a smoking skilled for a few seconds, each side, to get a sear, and, then, I'll have a perfectly, solely medium-rare steak. Also, since the steak was vacuum packed, it comes out moist and, because it was marinating in its own juice, the salt I put on has permeated the whole steak.

Of course, you wouldn't barbecue with it and you couldn't smoke meats (and there are times when this is preferable), but, for steaks, if you have time, this is only method that results in a truly perfect cook.

FUCK PLASTIC

>>11666519
>Great I just wasted $100 on a water warmer now I need to throw more money at a vacuum sealer

I have these https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07KSSCCK7/ref=sspa_mw_detail_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1 (without the smaller bags). One box of bags lasts me awhile and, the few times that I haven't planned ahead and have run out, I've had fine results with just heavy duty Ziplock bags and the displacement method.

>>11667263

Yeah mozzarella, yogurt, butter, cultured cream, sunchoke, asparagus, octopus, foie gras for a quick mousse, roulade or ballotine, egg applications of all sorts, duck breast, activating pectin in fruits for fruit coulos or “consommes”, there sre just so many applications.

I think most posters are baiting but there are a few pic relateds

>>11668077
Oh and I also love dick. Forgot to add that. It really helps cooking things sous vide.

I'm tempted to buy a cheap meme stick.

It seems like a useful way to create a 37 C water bath for a home bio lab

>>11665894
Lobster, chicken, pork. Anything really just get a meme tier mapp gas torch or some cast iron to sear the shit out of your food.

>>11666718
There are non. Only those sold as BPA free, while containing shit like BPS because it now takes yeas again to prove that they are just as bad. This is how they are doing it for years. Every soft plastic will leak in heat and oily envoirements. People who use plastic in the kitchen are severaly retarded. Even coated frying pans have been shown to have feminizing results.

>>11666925
Aluminium leaks when combined with salt or acid (like lemons) and builds up in your brain and causes alzheimer.

>>11666287
>he thinks sous vide is new

>>11666904
Wrap your steak in another, larger piece of meat.

>>11665894
I've only had bad results once, and that's because I did a long cook in too small a pot without an evaporation barrier.

Salmon at 120 for 45 minutes with some extra virgin olive oil and fresh herbs is amazing. Once done, don't even sear, just peel the skin off and fry it a bit so it gets crispy.

Chicken breast should be at 140, it's cooked through but not dry at all. Thighs come out great at 165.

This is probably the best dedicated bin you can use: https://www.amazon.com/Cambro-12189CW-135-Camwear-gallon-Storage/dp/B00ADPF9V2
These guys sell custom-fit lids, the bins, and even insulation kits, or all as one set: https://www.perfect-sousvide.com/

>>11666392
>Uninformed retard calling someone else retarded

>>11666397
It's entertaining how much the idea of a device for a specific cooking technique triggers you so hard, as if using one would be a direct affront to your masculinity and not just another tool in your arsenal like any real cook would see it as.

>>11669629

>Even coated frying pans have been shown to have feminizing results.

You are so retarded it's easy to conclude that everything you "know" is communist propaganda

>>11666605
The results are worth it. Plus if you like playing with fire the searing step can be a thing where you put on a show.

>>11666976
>Drop in
>Walk away and do whatever the hell else you feel like
>hurr waste of time durr

>>11669775
>>11669783
>>11669790
samefag sperging this hard over a meat dildo

>>11667070
>boiling
>125f
>No contact between food and water
Being this willingly ignorant should be a crime

>>11669790
I'm speaking about medical studies, brainlet. Nowhere did I even imply anything political. Instead of instantly kvetching, you should actually bother to read into the stuff you want to speak about. Beeing a cooperate cattle doesn't suit either political spectrum.

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1210/jc.2018-01855/5158211

>>11667263
>when you realize that you can get a comparable reverse-seared steak cooked in 7 minutes, the 1.5 hour wait for sous vide becomes tiring.

>I want to eat a couple hours from now, I'll toss the steak in
>Come back 2 hours later and finish

>>11668077
Steak, especially bag boiled is the most nu male food out there

>>11669629
>feminizing results.
And here we see the core of his insecurity, that if he doesn't do everything in a "HURR SUPA MANLEE" way he'll turn into a woman.

>>11669790
>>11669810
>Results
>We found that increased levels of PFCs (chemical commonly found on nonstick pans and fast-food wrappers) in plasma and seminal fluid positively correlate with circulating T and with a reduction of semen quality, testicular volume, penile length and AGD. Experimental evidence points towards an antagonistic action of PFOA on the binding of T to AR in gene reporter assay, competition assay on AR-coated SPR chip and AR nuclear translocation assay.

>>11669822
>facts
>insecurity
I'm a femnon, I'm bothering to read into it so my kids don't become such faggots like yourself.

>>11669804
>Insecure retard sperging out over the idea of people cooking in a way he does like

>>11669825
your overuse of the word retard is what gives you away

>>11669824
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

>>11669826
>No actual counterargument
>Has nothing to back up his opinions
>Such a shit cook he has to insult anyone who dares use a popular, effective multitasker that gives great results

Do zoomers really boil steak in a bag?

>>11668077
Reverse searing in a low oven achieves similar results and you dont have to drop 50 bucks on a robot dildo

>>11669834
i never insulted you, succ vidd, nor provided my opinon
i merely pointed out your obvious samefaggotry

it's funny because i'm right and you're mad

>>11669838
People who use sous vide do not understand the concept of ovens. They actually believe slow cooking was invented by sous vide

>>11669846
they are seething. clearly a samefagging faggot.

they're wife is probably being fucked by bbc in the next room while they shit post here.

>>11669858
(((they)))

>>11669838
>>11669855
>Having a tool that does something extremely well means you don't know how to use your other tools
Reverse searing does not get the same results, though.

Man, all these bullshit attacks on the technique just show how ignorant the haters are about it.

>>11669846
You weren't right, you're a moron, get fucked, etc., etc.

>>11669858
>Hurr durr nneebuddee hu dudd diz iz a cuc numul durr
The desperation to prove your manliness is hilarious.

>>11669875
are you learning english from your wifes bull?

>>11666948
>cunnysseurs

I hate this place

>>11666904
I saw cling wrapped used when I worked in a kitchen. Don’t know how you feel about using that

>>11669869
What does it do extremely well exactly? It's a pointless appliance for neo cooks who can't be bothered to learn the very basics of cooking

>>11669895
hospital and airplane food

>>11669892
>not only wrapping but boiling cling wrap in the year of our lord 2018
Thank god I never eat out.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3207138/Don-t-clingy-Amid-mounting-evidence-plastic-food-wrap-harbours-host-toxins-doctors-urge-people-stop-using-it.html

>>11669895
People will be laughing at this in 50 years when there is a thread about useless cooking inventions that were just a fad.

>>11669899
It's been around for 50 years already, what makes you think it won't survive another 50?

>>11669904
I thought boiling foods has been around a lot longer than that?

>>11669898
Haha fuck. Good thing I never ate that shit.

>>11669895
>Perfectly cooked hard/soft boiled eggs exactly where you want them
>Brine seasons meats thoroughly as they cook
>Vegetables are cooked to perfection without needing to fry or leech out flavor by boiling
>Makes amazingly smooth mashed potatoes
It's a powerful tool for people who know what they're doing, too. Just because you can't wrap your head around the idea of it doesn't mean it's wrong or lazy. If anything, because it requires a lot more planning and steps it's something you need expertise in cooking to use well.

>>11669907
>Still so retarded he's hung up on "boiling" even though the water is not boiling, nor is there direct contact
The water is a heat transfer medium, not the cooking liquid you fucking spaz.

>>11669915
Tbh, the only safe thing in the kitchen is stainless steel, wood, ceramic and glass. People also need to stop drinking from plastic bottles, especially if those were (and they nearly always are) reused or placed anywhere in sunlight.

There is so much shit out there because it's cheap and than people wonder why european (and american) sperm counts sink into oblivion and more and more men get bitch titts. No single thing will prolly do it, but we get exposed so hard to it, that it's best to cut it out where ever you can.

>>11669926
>So autistic he doesn't recognize hyperbole

>>11669930
>He thinks pretending to be stupid makes any point

>>11669929
Why do you fear muh chemicals in plastic, but not the chromium in stainless steel?

>>11669937
>He says after explaining to a stupid person why sous vide isn't the same as boiling

>>11669945
Because we have medical data on the bad effects of plastic but not on leeking steel. Feel free to prove me wrong and I might cut them out as weel and switch to cast iron.

I actually don't like evenly cooked steak. I want some texture running through it.

>>11669955
fuck off m8

>>11669953
As long as you use freezer/sous vide rated plastic you aren't getting enough in the food to matter.

>>11669810
Your source doesn't mention frying pans. Try again puppetboy

>>11669953
We have data on both. Why are you choosing only to look at one of them?

>everyone who points out that I'm wrong is the same person

>>11669920
All that can be easily achieved with regular cooking methods, faster and with less waste.

>>11669999
Checked

>>11669999
>still angry an hour later

>>11670002
Faster? Sure. Less waste? Maybe.

Easier? Certainly not. It's the opposite, really.

>>11669962
No I refuse.
I also don't trim the fat off my steaks. I slice it in a way to get a little bit of fat with each bite of meat.

>>11669869
>Reverse searing does not get the same results, though.

I said similar results you ignoramus.
I do believe that a sous vide would give you a better result, but your arguments do not justify, to me, the investment I would be making for the convenience/result gained. Maybe someday when I have all the kitchen devices I need I will get a sous vide to play around with. Right now, though, I'd like to work on solidifying certain techniques, learning new dishes/recipes/styles and expanding my culinary knowledge.

>>11670030
>work on solidifying certain techniques, learning new dishes/recipes/styles and expanding my culinary knowledge.

But for some reason that desire to learn new things and techniques does not include sous vide? Seems odd, especially when you don't need to spend a penny to try it out.

>>11669631
>Aluminium leaks when combined with salt or acid (like lemons) and builds up in your brain and causes alzheimer.
I guess you just can't win

>>11670030
>but your arguments do not justify, to me,
That "to me" is the important part, and you're arguing your personal opinions as if objective facts for everyone.

>>11670034
No, it's not near the top of my list because it is a boring cooking method, and if you read my post you would see that I do have some interest in it.

Probably because it is a fairly new technique and not really a building-block that all cooks should know. The concept makes sense and I'm sure it works, but how the knowledge gained from being sous vide seems less transferable than other techniques.
"I'm really good at setting food it water at a certain temperature and letting it come to that temperature"

>>11670051
Wow, you comprehend the English language!!!! Gold star!

I obviously know what I typed, the post is a statement of my opinion, nothing more.

>>11669985
Again, there is no difference in BPA and BPS, the later beeing called safe, just like BPA has been in the past. By nature plastic which is flexible has to have phtalates which leek. The longer you use said plastic the more it leeks. So even from an envoiremental standpoint it's better.

>>11669995
I don't ignore it, that's why I said that you should feel free to show me data which talks about it. Last time I checked even corroded steel doesn't leek Cr6+ but only Cr3+, which doesn't have any effects on human health.

>>11669994
Have you read where those chemicals are used before shitposting like a brainlet?

>>11670061
It's knowing your tables for what particular temps and time ranges will yield particular results. What kind of protein requires only half an hour versus a 72-hour cook. The critical differences in how you season foods when in vacuum versus baking/roasting/frying/sauteing/etc.

It's a technique that only looks simple from the outside, but has a lot of interesting depth once you actually get into it.

>>11670066
>And here we see the hater get buttmad because the core flaw of his aruments was pointed out

>>11670039
You can use it for simple covering in non-salty or acidic food. You simply need to know what you are doing. Similar to using cling wrap for covering bowls without touching the food.

Sous vide makes eating chicken breast every day bearable. Nice to meal prep a weeks worth of chicken and have them individually wrapped and frozen and ready to cook whenever

>>11670074
Why don't you tell us puppetboy?

>>11670124
I literally posted the fucking results in the post below. If you can't even read into what you buy and eat from, it probably has an eugenic effect on our society.

>>11670139
Where's your source???? It's nowhere but your (their) mind

>>11670145
>not buying cheap shit which fucks you and your children but spending on stuff staying useable for generations is getting jewed and beeing a shill

Read it again and just google what PFCs are. Taking (their) side will not get you any good boy points.
>>11669823

>>11669631
>>muh aluminum and alzheimers
Yeah, and scabs cause cuts while white blood cells cause infections?

Why do people believe this stupid shit?

>>11670072
>but only Cr3+, which doesn't have any effects on human health.

Is there no end to the dumb shit that you believe?

>>11670159
https://www.bssa.org.uk/topics.php?article=112

>>11670162
Wow, another source you misunderstood!

>>11670154
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21157018

>>11670164
How about you explain it to us instead of simply shittalking studies and serious sources while not bringing anything else to the table?

>>11670169
More 'links' mights and maybes, and yet there is still no explanation of the logic in your mind.

I'm not sure what your academic experience is, but the term "link" is meaningless in an academic paper. Come back when you have clear causality, not mights maybes and ifs.

>>11670176
>ncbi with clear abstract
>just a link
Ah, in this case just keep using plastic and other hormon disruptors. As part of the gibs aying society we thank you for stepping out of the gen pool and have a happy hanuhka.

>>11670173
>How about you explain it to us
that's what I'm asking you to do, and yet you're just posting links.

Your article has two problems:
1) it only talks about chromium present in stainless steel. It doesn't talk about what happens to the chromium after it leaches out.

2) It makes no discussion as to whether or not trivalent chromium is toxic. Simply reading the MSDS for chromium tells us that it is, in fact, toxic.

3) The article makes the lucicrous claim that stainless steel doesn't contain hexavalent chromium. That is absurd. There is no such thing as a truly pure substance so there will always be trace amounts of hexavalent chromium present.

>>11670186
If "evidence" that weak is sufficient to convince you of things I'm surprised you aren't living in a cave somewhere away from any modern invention.

>>11670190
Weird how some people use Cr3+ as a supplement if it's so toxic. Almost as if the body uses it for metabolic purpose, specifically sugars.

>>11670225
>people use Cr3+ as a supplement if it's so toxic
Kind of like how people take Vitamin tablets despite vitamins being lethal in the case of an overdose too?

>>11670190
>It makes no discussion as to whether or not trivalent chromium is toxic. Simply reading the MSDS for chromium tells us that it is, in fact, toxic
So, do you have any studies which talk about said subject? Especially the concentrations and release depending on use? I haven't cmoe across anything of that kidn yet.

>There is no such thing as a truly pure substance so there will always be trace amounts of hexavalent chromium present.
That might be the case but that is still no argument why we should keep using unnecessary plastics. If anything, we should find ways to replace stainless steel as well.

>>11670193
I'm not convinced. I chose to rather err on the side of caution with plastics, as there are more than enough alternatives for them unlike steel. Healthy scepticism towards giant cooperations and goverment institutions regularly decades back on regulating shit like that.

>>11670231
>o, do you have any studies which talk about said subject?
No, I don't need them. The MSDS information on the various Chromium salts in the lab I work in are sufficient to convince me.

>>That might be the case but that is still no argument why we should keep using unnecessary plastics
Agreed. and I'm not advocating for using unnecessary plastics. I just think the reasoning you are following seems dubious.

>>I'm not convinced. I chose to rather err on the side of caution with plastics
That's clear. But why only plastics? Why don't you apply the same level of excess caution to other things? Plastics seem to trigger you hard, and I'm curious why that is.

>>11670230
But you wont find people supplementing phtalates, as there are no heathy amounts as far as modern science can tell. So stainless steel is still a better option than anything plastic.

>>11670230
Anything is toxic if you overdose. If you chugged water for a day straight, you'd probably die. Should we call water toxic? The fact is, your body needs Cr3+ and some people are deficient and use it as a supplement. Now if you want to argue that Cr3+ in large doses is bad, then I agree

>>11670250
But there are non-effect levels, and what you'll get from sous vide are below that.

>>11670244
>No, I don't need them.
Well, I like to base my opinions on facts. I work in a lab and just because there are hazard warning labels on shit, it doesn't mean it's toxic in all amounts. Just read the labeling of ascorbic acid ffs.

>I just think the reasoning you are following seems dubious.
I can only talk about things which I know about, if you can't show me eitehr studies showing that those plastics are not dangerous to our health or those showing that stainless steel in normal use is than can't change my mind.

>Why don't you apply the same level of excess caution to other things
I do. that's why I don't consume milk, despite loving it. At least not in big amounts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19496976

The only onces getting triggered are those calling everyone retard because they don't like the thought of getting their food cooked in soft plastics without a really good reason.

>>11670250
>But you wont find people supplementing phtalates,
Probably because there is no reason to.

>>So stainless steel is still a better option than anything plastic
I'm not denying that. I'm just curious why you fear such tentative links to plastic causing health problems. Human beings have been packaging and cooking foods in plastic for about a hundred years now. If it had any sort of appreciable risk we'd have known about it long ago.

>>but but muh paper says that it might maybe kind of be linked to a potential risk factor for X
Not good enough. Given the massive amount of empirical information we have on the subject, if there was an appreciable health risk it would be abundantly clear.

For some reason you sperg out about plastics, yet you seem to have no worries about doing far more dangerous things every day of your life. You apparently don't worry about using electronics, despite electric shock and electrical fires causing far more harm than plastics in food ever have. You whine about plastics, yet you have no problem riding in cars.

>>11670255
>Anything is toxic if you overdose.
Yes, that's the point. The dose is what matters, not the substance itself.

>>. Should we call water toxic?
Nope. And we shouldn't call plastic toxic either, for the exact same reason.

Normal amounts of water that people drink are harmless. So is are the trace amounts of chemicals from plastics in your food.

>>11670260
Of course, there are non-effect levels. The problem with plastics is that nearly everything is full of "non-effect" levels which accumulaing leads to aid effects which are very obvious. There are points in life where you can pick the better option (like in your own kitchen) and those where you can't (like the medically polluted tab water and progesterone affecting your children*1), so it's advisable, in my opinion, to avoid them were possible to reduce the impact of those which you can't circumvent.

That's all I've been saying.

*1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28374065

>>11670265
>I like to base my opinions on facts
you don't seem to be basing them on facts though. The mere mention of a potential risk triggers you. that's you basing your decisions on emotions, not facts.

>>getting their food cooked in soft plastics without a really good reason.
The superior results the method provides aren't a "really good reason"?

>>11670276
>And here we see the perfect example of hysterical over-reaction to "thing could cause issues in unrealistically high dosages"

I've had sous vide veg at a restaurant and they tasted insanely nice, caramelised flavour but ultra tender.

I tried this in my sous vide and just got boiled veg with more of their original flavour. Guess it doesn't help that you cook them near boiling and it causes the bag to inflate.

How the fuck do they do it?

>>11670294
Read Modernist Cuisine.

>>11670266
>Human beings have been packaging and cooking foods in plastic for about a hundred years now.
That's nothing in evolutionary terms. And we DO see the negative effects. Keep in mind that even animal testing in medicine is barely 50 years old. And study after stud shows that plastics do have an significant effect on humans. This isn't a irrational fear, it's wacting on evidence.

>Given the massive amount of empirical information we have on the subject, if there was an appreciable health risk it would be abundantly clear.
But somehow this doesn't apply to stainless steel. It's nearly like it's not me arguing out of irrationality.

>For some reason you sperg out about plastics, yet you seem to have no worries about doing far more dangerous things every day of your life
The only thing I did was posting studies. You're the one claiming I do worse shit and sperging out.

>You apparently don't worry about using electronics, despite electric shock and electrical fires causing far more harm than plastics in food ever have.
Whataboutism. Unlike plastics, electricity wont make me sterile without me feeling it happening. But I do life a minimalistic life and cut out eletrconics where possible and don't own a car and rarely even use anything but my bike.

You're claiming that we should use shot shown to be harmfull without a nedd just because there are unavoidable risks to life. At this point any discussion is useless.

>>11670294
they use an actual vide

>>11670277
>you don't seem to be basing them on facts though. The mere mention of a potential risk triggers you. that's you basing your decisions on emotions, not facts.
I'm basing my decision on caution and studies, unlike you doing on seer labeling without taking into the equation amounts and use.

>The superior results the method provides aren't a "really good reason"?
Well, feel free to use it if you think SV is so much better that it's worth the downsides. I do not think that it's the case.

>>11670294
What temp did you do? I've had fantastic results with carrots and zucchini at 185, which isn't "near boiling" and doesn't cause outgassing.

>>11670298
>Whataboutism. Unlike plastics, electricity wont make me sterile without me feeling it happening. But I do life a minimalistic life and cut out eletrconics where possible and don't own a car and rarely even use anything but my bike.
Luddite hysterical reactionary detected.

>>11670298
>That's nothing in evolutionary terms.
You're right, but we aren't talking about anything on an evolutionary scale. We just want to know if it's toxic or not. And we've had entire generations consuming food cooked in and packed in plastic and yet there's nothing to show for it.

>>And study after stud shows that plastics do have an significant effect on humans.
Can you cite a single one that's not filled with mights maybes and links? Because not even people who work in plastic plants or injection molding facilities seem to be showing symptoms, despite being exposed to amounts orders of magninudes higher than food contamination.

>>But somehow this doesn't apply to stainless steel.
Fucking finally. It took you long enough. It does apply to stainless steel. Are you finally starting to use your brain now?

>>The only thing I did was posting studies.
that's the problem. You are implying those studies have documented a clear enough link to draw conclusions from. they haven't.

>>Whataboutism
Call it that if you want, but it's perfectly valid. If you claim to be a logical operator, why have auto accident statistics not stopped you from riding in cars?

>>Unlike plastics, electricity wont make me sterile without me feeling it happening
No, but it can kill you. Isn't that enough to make you want to avoid it? It's far worse than the tentative links you're posting about plastics.

>>and cut out eletrconics where possible
Nonsense. You're using electronics to shitpost on a Bhutanese marquetry forum.

>>You're claiming that we should use shot shown to be harmfull without a nedd just because there are unavoidable risks to life.
Nope. I'm asking you why you seem to do many things despite very high and clear risks, while you seem to avoid other things that have only the tiniest bit of risk associated with them. that seems inconsistent from someone claiming to act in a logical manner, so I'm hoping you can either explain yourself.

>>11670317
Reading studies, calculating the pro and conra and acting on new information is hardly hysterical. But you're right on beeing reactionary, not that it's something I would consider an insult. Things which have proven to be good for millenia have a higehr value tha those regularly shown to be a dangerous gadget.

Enjoy your SV food and try to bring up better arguments next time.

>>11670302
>I'm basing my decision on caution and studies
Your caution seems excessive given how tenuous the links in the studies are.

>>without taking into the equation amounts and use.
I do take into account amounts and use. I am not afraid of eating food cooked in plastic because I know the amount present will be insufficient to cause harm, and because I eat those things so infrequently as to avoid buildup.

>> it's worth the downsides.
As far as I can see it has zero downsides.

>>11670326
i'm not the guy you're responding too and i'm not reading that block of text but plastic hasn't been common for 100 years and it's on a warpath destroying the earth

>>11670331
You're blowing the studies out of proportion, using the "X amount is toxic, so any amount is!" fallacy, and massively overstating the end results.

>tha those regularly shown to be a dangerous gadget.
But this hasn't been shown. At all.

>>11670331
>Reading studies, calculating the pro and conra and acting on new information is hardly hysterical.
The conclusions you draw from the studies you have posted are well beyond hysterical. You are a reactionary, though you might not realize it yourself.

>> Things which have proven to be good for millenia have a higehr value tha those regularly shown to be a dangerous gadget.
and here you are using a computer to post on an online forum.

>>11670307

I'd read that needs to be 94c+ for veg to tenderize. Guess that was bullshit then. I'll give it another try at a lower temp.

>>11670339
I didn't say it was common, but it's been around for roughly that long. It's been used in the liners for metal cans for many decades.

>> it's on a warpath destroying the earth
Plastic isn't. It's an inanimate object. It just sits there. Now if you're claiming that people's desire for a throwaway society, which is usually tied to plastics, is destroying the earth I agree completely. But it's not due to toxicity in food, it's due to the fact that we humans are fucking incapable of dealing with our trash in a logical manner.

>>11667123
>and wala
Stupid fucking roody poo, it's voilà. Consider suicide

>>11670350
Here's a pretty good general guide: https://www.chefsteps.com/activities/sous-vide-time-and-temperature-guide

One of the great things with sous vide for vegetables is that you can get them cooked and softened a bit, but they'll stay really nicely firm and have a really solid flavor you can lose to the pan or water in traditional techniques.

>>11670364
>xe doesn't know about wa la
you must be new here, cocklips.

(1/2)

>>11670326
>We just want to know if it's toxic or not
And that takes time. Read into generational toxicity. Things our grandparents consumed can show effect only in the second or third generation, especially if we're talking about epigenetically active or accumulating chemicals. That's why I said, I like to err in caustion till we know more. Not for me but for my children and their children.

>And we've had entire generations consuming food cooked in and packed in plastic and yet there's nothing to show for it.
Do you live behind the moon? There are multiple related negative points which will probably in future be blamed on plastics, at least partially like the massivly falling fertility in the west, feminization and risiking non-heterosexuality to only point out a few.

>Can you cite a single one that's not filled with mights maybes and links?
Are you asking me to write a a physical letter or how if not through a link can I show you anything? Science is always full of "maybies". That's what differenciets it from snake oil which is always sure of itself.

> Because not even people who work in plastic plants or injection molding facilities seem to be showing symptoms
That's because those people don't consume the plastic. Just like there are multiple things toxic when inhaled but not when consumed, or toxic when handled but not when reacted to in any other way. You are clearly showing that you do not understand science, while actually trying to claim to do better than anyone else in here.

>It does apply to stainless steel.

>>No, do you have any studies which talk about said subject?
>No, I don't need them. The MSDS information on the various Chromium salts in the lab I work in are sufficient to convince me.

So, which is it?

(2/2)

>You are implying those studies have documented a clear enough link to draw conclusions from.
Never implied that, I have given the possibility to others to make up their own mind and if they dont want to err in caution like me, that's fine.

>If you claim to be a logical operator, why have auto accident statistics not stopped you from riding in cars?
>No, but it can kill you. Isn't that enough to make you want to avoid it?
That's not logical. It's deciding which risks are necessaiy and which are not. Riding an emergency vehicle is necessary if you want to survive a heart stroke, riding 2km to the next walmarkt or speeding at night, isn't. While the first might kill me, it has a higher probability of saving my life. The later both will probably kill me in various ways.

>You're using electronics to shitpost on a Bhutanese marquetry forum
Yes, while doing work. The internet is far more necesary than a car or kitchen plastics, at least for me.

Again, if you want to keep using SV, do it. But don't sperg out when people don't participate in this modernist nonsense based on scietific output, just because they don't life like Varg. For me it's no benefit, with many downsides. That's about it. If you don't have anything of scientific value on it to share with us, you don't need to further reply.

>>11670353
>It's been used in the liners for metal cans for many decades.
And it's has been shown to be an endocrine disruptor, as for example BPA, which is why it got banned in the EU and now companies switched to BPS, which acts just like it.

Dear lord, just fucking stop talking and excusing your plastic cooking. Nobody cares if you like to put it up your ass just don't shit on people pointing out the obvious like a fithly kike puppet.

>>11670391
>Things our grandparents consumed can show effect only in the second or third generation
Lol, sure. You are applying a hyper extreme degree of caution here.

>>There are multiple related negative points which will probably in future be blamed on plastics
Come back when we have definite proof, not "probably in the future". We have definite proof for a great number of things in medicine and science. We don't have it here.

>>Are you asking me to write a a physical letter or how if not through a link can I show you anything?
No, I'm asking you to cite an article which has found a concrete link and not maybes.

>> Science is always full of "maybies".
No. A lot of it is full of maybes. Not all of it. Cutting edge science is full of maybes. Maybes mean that someone has an idea or a theory but the evidence has not conclusively proven it yet. Perhaps it will, one day, but it means that for the time being people don't know. And yes, a lot of science falls into that category. But a great deal of science has already moved past the stage of mights and maybes and is instead treated as fact or law. You are willing to make decisions based on the mights and maybes. I ask for a higher standard before taking action.

>>That's what differenciets it from snake oil which is always sure of itself.
Not really. What separates science from snake oil or religion is that science demands proof. And that proof must be something that others can duplicate and replicate in independent experiments. Right now we're not at the stage with plastics in food where we can say, definitively, that A causes B. We have an awful lot of guessing, but we don't have any reliable, repeatable, proof of anything. And frankly the silence is deafening on many of these things given the massive numbers of studies undertaken.

>>11670408
>Nobody cares if you like to put it up your ass just don't shit on people pointing out the obvious like a fithly kike puppet.
OK Stormie.

>>11670391
>So, which is it?
I believe that stainless steel cannot help but leach small amounts of its constituent elements into the food you cook in it. I belive that this includes, among other things, both tri- and hexavalent chromium, both of which I believe to be toxic, especially the latter. I also believe that this doesn't matter because the amounts present are far too small to present any risk worth mentioning. I also believe that it's pointless to worry about because we could put any kind of cookware under the proverbial microscope and if we look hard enough we can find something we can whine about.

>>But don't sperg out when people don't participate in this modernist nonsense based on scietific output

I've got no problem with you not liking SV for whatever reason. I do, however, think that you are lying when you say your motivation for doing so is based in science. It's not. It's either unrelated issues that you haven't mentioned, or it's founded reactionary hyper-cautious take on tenuous scientific evidence.

>>11670433
>Lol, sure. You are applying a hyper extreme degree of caution here.
I'm not a jehovas Witness. If necessary I use plastic. That's the point you seem to be too dense to understand.

>Come back when we have definite proof, not "probably in the future".
I will, and if I'm wrong I might start using it. But I'm not going to uselessly play russian roulette with my childrens future. But I guess, you don't have any, so this character trait seems stupid to you.

>No, I'm asking you to cite an article which has found a concrete link and not maybes.
So such thing in complex creatures and complex envoirement without direct human experiments. Especially as it's about accumulation, not like contergan, beeing able to show a direct corelation - which still isn't causation.

>A lot of it is full of maybes. Not all of it.
So I guess, you dont believe in climate change and the holocaust? Just asking, cause bot are full of maybies and "it was all in my mind"s.

>What separates science from snake oil or religion is that science demands proof.
And proof takes time. A long time in such a subject.

>We have an awful lot of guessing, but we don't have any reliable, repeatable, proof of anything.
Our knowledge is yet limited but those which start to emerge point into a direction which makes those caring about the possible effects cut their consumptin as far as possible. You're acting as if I would ask for your first borns foreskin on barely any studies, but all I do is spreading the possibility to give others the chance of deciding for themselves if the benefits are worth the risk.

I can't fathom why you would sperg out about it.

>>11670408
>And it's has been shown to be an endocrine disruptor, as for example BPA
right, that's the point.
BPA we have clear evidence on. We know the facts.
All this whining about SV bags, however, lacks those facts. SV bags do not contain BPA.

>> don't shit on people pointing out the obvious like a fithly kike puppet.
The problem is that what you think is "obvious" is actually *fictitious*. Fuck, I don't even like SV cooking. I just draw the line at making incorrect claims.

>>11670456
>I do, however, think that you are lying when you say your motivation for doing so is based in science. It's not.
Well, it is, otherwise I would not post the sources I do but something out of some pseud snake oil websites claiming all human suffering is due to plastic and the only remedy is buying my super-duper-panaceaTM.

>It's either unrelated issues that you haven't mentioned, or it's founded reactionary hyper-cautious take on tenuous scientific evidence.
Well, so much for irrational fear. I can' really image another reason why I would circumvent plastics, but than again people thinking everyone disagreing has some deep rooted evil agenda can't be convinced otehrwise.

>>11670465
It's not only about BPA but a whole group of chemicals just like phtalates which we know fuck with our health.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747651/

If we encounter mutiple people out of a family acting like niggers, the probability is high that niggerness runes in their blood and we should expect similar behaviour in the remaining family members.

>>11670460
>I'm not a jehovas Witness.
Stating that the reason why you don't like SV is your fear of chemicals leaching out of the bag is JW tier.

>> so this character trait seems stupid to you.
No. It seems inconsistently applied.

>>So I guess, you dont believe in climate change and the holocaust?
I believe in both of those. Neither are filled with mights or maybes.

>>And proof takes time.
Not really. How long have we had concrete proof that, say, lead is toxic? What about hemlock?

>>I can't fathom why you would sperg out about it.
I've already pointed that out. It's the logical inconsistency of the whole thing. You're hypersensitive about muh plastics, but you seem not to apply anywhere near the same amount of illogical freakout to other things in your life. Where on the doll did the plastic touch you?

>>11670516
>Stating that the reason why you don't like SV is your fear of chemicals leaching out of the bag is JW tier.
The question isn't even if they leek, the question is if they have bad effects on human health which seems to be the case when considering the whole chemical family. Not fully embracing them is like not swallowing medicine which hasn't yet been actually studied in human subjects and not knwoing if Contergan will fuck up your kid, just because they get shilled on /fit/.

>No. It seems inconsistently applied.
>You're hypersensitive about muh plastics, but you seem not to apply anywhere near the same amount of illogical freakout to other things in your life.
Yes, it seems to be so to you because you can't understand the differece between necessary risks and unnecessary risks or the responsibility which come with beeing a parent. Life means cnstantly wagering between the benefits and downsides, as everything has them both, just not in the same amount in every lifes situation.

>Neither are filled with mights or maybes.
Thank you for showing us that you knwo nothing about science. therwise you would know that climat science is a meme, even tho I wouldn't even necessary disagree with the big point. It's like "political science" only harder memed to "I fucking love science" inbeciles.

>How long have we had concrete proof that, say, lead is toxic? What about hemlock?
Probably longer, because we used it for centuries, unlike plastics which only came in use for the average westerner during the 60 and 70s.

>>11665894
Sous vide is mostly good for proteins. So, any meat, really. Also good for eggs. I also use mine a lot for thawing meat, it's really efficient for that.

Jesus Christ what even happened to this thread. I thought /ck/ liked this sous vide shit.

>>11670801
Sous vide is popular for obvious reasons, which means there are screeching contrarians.

>>11670801
>I thought /ck/ liked this sous vide shit.
We do.

There's some triggered assclown who thinks it will turn his great grandkids gay or someshit.

>>11670817
>we
Fuck off redditor go boil your meat and play your switch

>>11670921
And he's back. Get tired of wanking to Alex Jones videos?

>>11670943
You do know that you're talking with several people and that nobody talked about conspiracy theories but simple peer reviewed studies?

It's getting pathetic.

>>11670972
>It's getting pathetic.
>He thinks it's just been one person replying to him
Yes, you are quite pathetic.

>>11670972
it's a perfect comparison. Jones makes mountains out of molehills the same way that the scared-of-plastics assclown does.

>>11670995
Not to mention Jones is big on exploiting that paranoia by fearmongering about that exact same kind of thing, then selling his drooling fanbase expensive snake oil to "protect" against it.

>>11670995
I have yet to see someone here beeing angsty desu. Unlike those trying to meme everyone disagreeing with them as some kind of phobiac, the other side at least brings some hard facts to the table. Calling everyone Alex Jones retards wont make your position any better, as name calling usually is the last resort of a loosing argument.

I've yet to see a reason why cutting out a potential hazard is worth such a fuzz. It's not like it's suddenly becomming illegal to consume bitchtits flavoured meat.

>>11671012
>I've yet to see a reason why cutting out a potential hazard is worth such a fuzz. It's not like it's suddenly becomming illegal to consume bitchtits flavoured meat.
Because it's an imaginary hazard based on hysterically overblowing the actual risk levels. Which is something that Jones does to sell you shit.

>>11671029
I don't watch Jones and I'm well read enough to be able to differentiate snake oil from evidance based medicine. And still avoiding yet unknnown hazards with grave potential seems like a lohical step, if it's practical and not really a biggy. It's not like there isn't any alternative to use in most day to day envoirements regarding food. And it's also good to pressure the goverment and companies to study their profitable stuff better to show me that those corelations are nothing but illusions.

Instead of name calling and trash talking people raising awarness in light of regular cooperational fuckery, just point out that it's not necessary as bad as implied. That would be the neutral position. You aren't really any better than Magatards trying to justify everything their based Billiaire does or says. Just stay objective.

>>11671047
You're not "raising awareness", you're namecalling and overhyping a minor risk because people are doing a thing you don't like, and are using it to act high and mighty about how you aren't exposing yourself to "dangerous chemicals" your own sources can't definitively link to support your claims.

>>11671061
Where did I name call? I guess you're yet again mistaking me for some other anon. I don't care if you swim in horse semen, do what makes you happy. Just don't sperg about how telling that it might not be the best idea is some kind of conspiracy theory.

But whatever, you nor any other anon here provided anything serious as to counteract the arguments made, so I'm out.

Have a nice night.

>>11666405
>>11666427
>>11666428
How embarrassing...

>>11665894
isnt' plastic leeching in to food a bad thing though?

>>11671077
Seething bag boiler

>>11671075
>He thinks repeating conspiracy theory tier unscientific fearmongering as if we have to listen to his dire warning is worth taking seriously
Hope you choke on your holier than thou attitude.

>>11671090
It's in such trace to non-existent levels in plastic rated for the use as to be a complete non-issue.

>>11671095
Note how the hater has to retreat to this idiotic insult because he has nothing to back his bullshit.

>>11671110
Bag boiler lmao

>>11671114
>Abject desperation

>>11671128
Boiler of bags, are you transitioning

>>11671337
>Quintupling down and flinging insults because he knows he's both stupid and wrong

>>11665900
Sums it up pretty well.

>>11671358
I mean, sure, sums up the opinions of retarded haters who don't know what the fuck they're talking about, yeah.

>>11665900
This

>>11665894
Ive had my sous vide for like 2 years now and its pretty good; I will say that steaks are very tender and juicy but lack some kind of inherent flavor you get when you coook it like regular. Pork however is an immense improvement and always tastes amazing

>>11671546
>but lack some kind of inherent flavor you get when you coook it like regular
You know you're supposed to sear it afterwards, right?

>>11671535
>Got burned so samefags again

>>11666307
Judging from your post, you possibly wouldn't be able to discern the difference between a regular grilled steak and a sous vide steak, and I assume you have never worked in industry.

"Boiling in bag" is better than grilling in terms of:
a) moisture retention
b) consistency; aka retard-proof results, any peasant can now access glorious tender protein with a very low skill barrier.
c) storage and longevity of the protein pre and post cooking if you use vac bags
d) increased ease and speed of service of complex dishes - especially during busy a la carte service.

If you genuinely think you can grill a steak to the absolutely highest possible standard you've ever achieved, every single time, you are most likely wrong, and lacking the capability to objectively taste and analyse your food (you'd be wrong to think you can do this without years and years of grilling steaks in a professional setting. Even the best chefs make mistakes time to time).

Sous vide allows absolutely top-tier, superior results every single time: perfectly cooked meat with little moisture loss, with absolute control over your desired end-state of the final product. If you like your ribs a little more snappy, with less collagen broken down, no problem, adjust by a few degrees. Its quite difficult to nail small nuanced differences in the final result when cooking protein traditionally without years of experience.

>>11666335
you're a fucking faggot

>>11666297
highly recommend joule for sous vide initiates, makes it very easy and accessible

>>11666517
think of it from a business perspective. I can pay someone with less experience less money to achieve consistently excellent results, using sous vide. It takes time and money (money in the wasted food cost) to train someone on how to cook protein to a high, consistent standard

>>11666948
>>11666963
excellent points from these gents

>>11665894

i like doing chicken wings with it, probably best if you have a deep fryer to finish them but i use a oven, keep an eye on them tho they crisp up really quick

>>11671993
There's a reason literally zero top steakhouses use sous vide. It's objectively inferior to salamanders/grills and even basic bitch pan searing. It also isn't even as remotely as tricky to get consistency as you're making it out to be, especially using commercial equipment.

Must suck being wrong all the time

>>11672041
Elaborate on how it’s objectively inferior?

>>11667163

Just reheat it in a microwave.

>>11672041
If you're charging $70 a plate or more for steak, you can afford chefs who know what they're doing with a steak that's taken a month and a half to lose 33%+ of its original weight.

But were sous vide shines isn't really ease/consistency. It's the fact you can get the steak perfectly medium rare (or whatever inferior level of cooking you prefer) with little to no gray gradient and a really hard, aggressive sear on the outside. As well as the fact that the sealed, hot environment thoroughly flavors the meat in a way that regular techniques just can't match.

Must suck being this much of a badly informed "know-it-all."

>>11672080
Fucking GIS not letting us go direct to images.

>>11672080
Better pic.

>>11672041
Guessing this is bait

>>11672089
Bullshit. I'm just dabbling as a cook and I can do better than that "classic". And that sous vide thing is missing crust.

>>11671098
>posting studies and other scientific publications assuming the populus can decide for themselves is on par with conspiracy theories
People like you are the reason normal and even educated people hate ivory tower retards which think they are the only ones entitled to creating an opinion.

That's coming from a lefty punk ib4 muh Jones.

>>11665894
Why cant I just do this with a vacuum sealer and the "keep warm" setting on a crock pot?

>>11665894
eggs (63c for 1h)
fish filets (50c for 20mins)
root veg (85c for 1h or till tender, then grill)
any bloody cut of meat can be nice if given 24h at 65c or so
shellfish can be nice, but be gentle (50c for 20m is a good guide, but may need 5 degrees either way)

other than cooking, it's a fucking fantastic way to preserve, marinade, and store food
>>11665897
this right here - pork brains need about 30m at 65c, livers and kidneys are gr8 also

>>11672089
you can achieve the same effect using reverse sear.
your oven can do the same thing without wasting a bunch of plastic.

>>11673018
>>11673355
>OPINIONS!

Do nu males really do this? Nigga just sear it like put it on a pan lmao stop boiling your meat

i think i went up to about 65, but i just put a thermometer in there and stopped raising the temp once i hit 60c in the middle. best pickles(?) i ever had.
söy, worcestershire, sugar, vinegar, garlic, coriander, black pepper, bay leaf, sriracha, dill. cooked it for about 3h overall and i finished drinking the marinade half a fucking year later - unrefrigerated the entire time (talking about a 5l batch i made in a bucket but cant find photos of).

>>11673906
>hurr numuls durr

>>11673355
>you can achieve the same effect using reverse sear.
As far as even cooking goes? Yes of course.
But you aren't getting the same effect of trapping the flavor inside the steak when you cook it.

>>11673931
The only thing escaping the steak is water, which means if anything the flavour intensifies. It doesn't matter how you do it, as sonn a anything leaves the steak, you ain't getting it back in. Even if the pouch prevents the juices to evaporate, the steak will still leave them behind in the pouch.

>>11673966
Except because of the way the sealed environment works, you're effectively brining the steak thoroughly as it's in the sealed bag, adding a ton of flavor from whatever you put in with it.

>>11673978
>sealed envoirement
You mean like any simple baking dish does? You add the meat, a couple spices or otehr ingridients you want to infuse the meat with and let it slowly warm up to the desires point just to sear it afterwards.

Please explain to me the difference, because I can't see any - except additional plastic trash and the fancy-pansyness of calling it SV instead using century old recipes.

>>11673978
>sealed envoirement
You mean like any simple baking dish does? You add the meat, a couple spices or otehr ingridients you want to infuse the meat with and let it slowly warm up to the desires point just to sear it afterwards.

Please explain to me the difference, because I can't see any - except additional plastic trash and the fancy-pansyness of calling it SV instead using century old recipes.

>>11673993
>You mean like any simple baking dish does?
No. They aren't hermetically sealed, and they contain a lot of air space. A bag forces the herbs, seasonings, marinade, or whatever else you put inside it to be in full 100% contact with the steak. There is no air, etc, to dilute.

>>11673993
>Please explain to me the difference
Go look up the section on Sous Vide in Modernist Cuisine and read it. I could fill ten message boxes and still not cover it all. Volume 2, chapter 9.

>>11674003
Desu, I've been long enough in the kitchen to know that you don't need to embrace NASA tier sealing for this to happen. Just buy a smaller baking dish with a heavy lid - and if you really want to go autistic, guess what, people have been putting raw dough to seal off the brim for centuries. It bakes itself close, so that you need to cut it open afterwards.

If you can't explain such a simple question, chances are that your source has to make it unnecessary difficult for a reason. Just like other snake oil sellers can never really get to the point.

>>11674026
If you want to be willfully ignorant, suit yourself.

I don't see the point in re-inventing the wheel when I just handed you the mother of all explanations.

>>people have been putting raw dough to seal off the brim for centuries. It bakes itself close, so that you need to cut it open afterwards.
Yep, I used to do that. But just as how I have embraced the internet instead of writing letters, sous vide has supplanted the traditional pot roast.

>>11674036
You not beeing able to explain a simple question regarding the difference, doesn't mean people are ignorent.

Unlike the internet to letters, SV has no benefits compared to baking dish closed with dough - while it does have potential health risks and a shit ton of never rotting wast.

Feel fre to embrace modernism, but don't act like there's some kind of deeper knowledge escaping those not so keen on it or that it's in any way different in terms of results. You want to use the trendy new toys, that boils down every argument I have yet heard. Just be confident enough to tell the truth instead of claiming that you need to have a very high Iq to understand Sous Vide.

>>11673999
>>11674026
Show me an oven that holds at 125.

>>11674068
>Being this obtuse because you feel you have to bang on so stupidly

>>11674074
125 bananas?

>>11674083
You knew exactly what I meant, troll.

>>11674068
>>SV has no benefits compared to baking dish closed with dough

Incorrect. Baking a dish sealed with dough contains air. This dilutes the flavors inside and prevents the armoatics from being in full contact with the meat, which happens with sous-vide bags. Sous vide bags are easy to pre-fill and freeze, then when you want to cook you can easily grab one out of the freezer and go. This is impractical with a baking dish and dough. furthermore, your cooking time will be much lower because water is a more efficient heat transfer medium than air is. You also have much better control over the cooking temperature with sous vide than you do with the average oven, which has horrid heat control.

The issue here is that SV has so many advantages I can't possibly list them all. Directing you to a better source seems like a far more reasonable idea than driving myself nuts trying to list them all.

>> Just be confident enough to tell the truth instead of claiming that you need to have a very high Iq to understand Sous Vide.
You don't need to be smart all. It's easy to understand. But for some reason you're mad at me for telling you to read the best book on the topic rather than explaining it myself?

Generally speaking, I tend to be a bit of a luddite. I avoid most "high tech" stuff because it usually doesn't work any better than the old, and it's often times worse--dont' get me started on comparing modern ovens to an old fashioned stone oven--but SV just works.

>>11674087
You do now that on this taiwanese pizza spelunking forum people use Celsius and Fahrenheit?

Beeing a european we use Celsius and once the temperatur of my oven readjusts after placing the dish inside, the temperature stays constant as can be seen on the build in termometer.

Maybe stop using a clay oven, if you're so keen on modern tech.

>>11674100
We're talking about a low temp, sub-boiling level that most ovens are completely incapable of running at. About 51C for you, dipshit. You're being intentionally obtuse because you know you're wrong and trying to stir shit up.

>>11674100
>You do now that on this taiwanese pizza spelunking forum people use Celsius and Fahrenheit?
Does it matter? The average home oven is horribly inaccurate at either temp.

>> once the temperatur of my oven readjusts after placing the dish inside, the temperature stays constant as can be seen on the build in termometer.
All ovens do that. And you know they lie to you too, right? If you open the door to your oven to put food it, does the thermometer instantly drop to show you the heat that was lost when you opened the door? Most ovens hide this information from you; the idea is not to confuse people. Ovens are notoriously inaccurate.

>>but but mine isn't inaccurate.
Cool. Who certified the calibration of your oven's thermostat and thermometer?

>>11674100
nah dude, unless you got some fancy ass expensive af certified and calibrated regularly oven. your oven is probably shit at holding any temperature and imprecise.

>>11665894
>join meat raffle group
>a bunch of red necks and middle age dads
>literally everyone uses sous vide for steak

>/ck/
>a bunch of turbo chads far too manly for sous vide, surely no one is limp wristed here

>>11674159
Plus the biggest youtube SVer's a legit martial arts master from Brazil.

>>11674121
>If you open the door to your oven to put food it, does the thermometer instantly drop to show you the heat that was lost when you opened the door?
That's why I wrote:
>and once the temperatur of my oven readjusts after placing the dish inside, the temperature stays constant as can be seen on the build in termometer.
My oven is pretty honest, as has been proven by other termometers. As I said, using a proper oven helps a lot.

>>11674175
i thought the biggest sv jewtuber was that dumb fat beaner swine that drowned steaks in fucking butter and then declared butter doesnt belong in sv?

>>11674159
>>11674175
>using stuff because its associated with masculinity
Spotted the glycine max puer.

>>11674184
>>and once the temperatur of my oven readjusts after placing the dish inside,
you told me it readjusts--that's meaningless, all ovens do that. That is why they contain a thermostat. I asked you if the numbers on your thermometer changed when you open the door.

>>My oven is pretty honest, as has been proven by other thermometers.
What are the certifications on those thermometers?

>>11674202
Yes, of course. That's literally what I wrote.
I use laboratory termometers with a allowed difference between 0.2- and 0.5°C. If they are good enough to boil crack with it, they are good enough for pretty much anything. I'm not sure in what third world country you live in, but usually such things have a state mandated accuracy.

>>11674214
>I use laboratory termometers with a allowed difference between 0.2- and 0.5°C
Good. And what was the variance inside your oven?

>>, but usually such things have a state mandated accuracy.
Can you name a single law, from any nation, which specifies that? I think you're talking out your ass.

>>11674198
>Says the dipshit claimning "hurr onlee numul soy cucks uze SV"

>>11674214
post make and model of your oven and the thermometer

>>11674191
Same guy, just because he's a super friendly dude on camera doesn't mean he couldn't kick your ass six ways from sunday.

And he tested butter vs no butter and found that fat/oil in SV just dilutes flavor out, though clarified butter searing does get great results.

>>11666289
underrated, kek

>>11674198
they're just using the same logic against you

>>11674277
Stop projecting, basedboi. I didn't even mention anything before. It's just hilarious how people fall for a meme, just like with the aeropress. Always good for a humble chuckle.

>>11674285
>he fell for the sous vide is a meme meme

>>11674285
>Legit cooking tool
>Meme
Congratulations, you're an idiot. One of the first major uses of the technique was in a French restaurant, in France, in 1974 to cook foie gras to get a perfect texture with little to no fat loss. It's been taking off in the last several years in consumer use because the tech to make affordable precision circulators is finally available. Hobbyists have been doing it for a long time with stuff like crock pots on a thermometer-rigged power switch.

>>11674244
mate, do you remember just how much butter he put in? i honestly dont consume that much in half a fucking year.

>>11666913
You don’t want volume in an anglaise

>>11674345
A few tablespoons in each bag?

Do you susbsist on unflavored bread and water or something?

>>11674409
i hope you have a poor memory and are not actually this retarded.
https://youtu.be/hNtqr8x_u7I?t=124

>>11674441
You're still engaging in severe hyperbole.

>>11674463
anon im sorry, but if to you that looks like the amount of butter a sane individual uses then the burger memes got to be true. that looks like 3/4 of a 250g pack of butter, i use that much in about four months.

>>11674478
Good for you? The point of that video was to test the difference. You using very little butter in your life means jack shit.

>>11674478
Also, have you seen how much butter the French use in everything?

>>11674543
nigger the fucking point of the video is to taste the augmentation butter gives to sv meat, not the fucking augmentation steaks give to butter - one of em is not the main fucking ingredient. have a good day and lets hope a heart attack is for now still far away for ya.

>>11674570
It was to compare which was better tasting, butter or no butter, and they found that while butter does add some flavor, it strips out a lot of the beef flavor they wanted to keep in the steak. Are you seriously this boneheaded?

Also, butter does not give you heart attacks. It's your 6 liters of soda a day habit that does it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/

The idea that fat is the cause was the result of a famous scientist exploiting that fame to push cherrypicked or outright fraudulent data to prove his "fat makes you fat" claims. Which resulted in tons of "diet" food on the market that cut fat and replaced it with sugar, and made the obesity, diabetes, and heart disease problems worse.

>>11674478
That was literally like 3-4 tablespoons of butter for a steak that's probably over a pound. It's a large amount, but really not that excessive.

Anyway, it's not that hard to understand that adding fat to your sous vide will dissolve fat-soluble flavor compounds and leave them in the bag instead of your meat.

>>11674635
Plus that was about a a stick for about half a picanha, which is about 2-2.5 pounds. And most of it was left in the bag anyways, further making his point look dumber.

>>11674843
That was definitely less than a whole stick of butter.

>>11674847
Either way, it's not something that was actively making the steaks much fattier, especially with the fat cap on anyways.

>>11665894
Does it connect to the cloud so i can monitor the boiling on my iphone?

>>11675752
>boiling
Can we just assume anybody saying this at this point is a troll?