/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>4621540
Only if they would lower their prices.

>>4621540
>go to site
>watch video
>see meat
>vomit profusely

that's not what meat looks like

Still too expensive for how much any normal person would use it. But I think the same about blenders.

>>4621594
Video begins.
"As bi-coastal foodies, we love to cook."
I already hate her.

>>4621640
My reaction as well.

I'm waiting for the Ronco sooveedEZ

>>4621640
>bi-coastal

What the hell does that even mean?

>>4621643
And it ends with "Thank you for taking the time to hear our passion."
She sounds like the kind of person who talks about her life journey of discovering her joy.

On the other hand, this looks like an interesting device which should make her a mint. Oh well, at least annoying rich people are better than straight up evil ones.

>>4621661
I'm guessing she's from the west coast and her partner is from the east. But really it just means she's an annoying yuppie.

>>4621540
thing looks like a dildo

>>4621540
>gnaw-mee-goo

I'm pretty sure you can hack a sous vide together for a much, much lower price, and you won't be the twerp who had to get the smoothly-moulded idiot-proof device.

>>4621640
As a human being that that needs to eat, I love to cook.

>>4621540
the girl in the video looks like shes melting wtf

360 DOLLARS ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS

>>4621540
Go home marketer, no one is this retarded. No home cook needs this. Especially for that ridiculous price.

The fact is people already have a slow cooker, it's called the slow cooker. You throw your foods in and forget about it for the rest of the day. By dinner time you have fall off the bone tender meats and veggies infused with the meaty flavors. You can't sell to anyone in their right mind some over three hundred dollar stick promising to reinvent the slow cooker that they can pick up for twenty bucks.

>>4621837
Not a marketer. And this isn't even close to being the same thing as slow-cooking.

>>4621837
Yet college kids with too much money will buy it anyway. Isn't the free market grand?

>>4621640

Bi-Cultural is what she said

>>4621640
at least she's one of the 'foodies' who actually cooks
and not one that just goes to 'exotic' restaurants

>go to site
>"Nomiku brings the magic of sous vide.."
>close tab
It's a glorified sous vide unit. I can get a plug-in thermostat unit for my slow cooker for $100.

>go to site
>see "onsen eggs"

What the fuck, do people actually not remember how to poach things?

Fuck the term foodie, period.

>>4621540
my water boiler at home uses the exact same design...it i has a metal cord or whatever on the inside to boil the water.

I cant believe so many people backed that dumb tool.

Over 1,000 people and over $500k raised. That is full retarded.

Learning how to cook a steak properly isnt difficult. You can learn it in minutes.

Additionally, why would you use that to cook for a large party?
It probably takes ages to heat up a pot of water big enough to cook the meat for a party.

Well, I believe this tool would waste time not save it. for almost $400 you can get much more necessary tools that can actually benefit you in the kitchen. Moreover, you can probably construct a better version of this for under $100

but I assume most of /ck/ can see how useless this tool is.

Sage because fuck that tool and that asian chick.

Why not just redneck it with beer cooler, hot water, and thermometer?

so it's a curling iron?

I'd give it a whirl, but only because Gordon Ramsey made a video once about making the perfect steak, and he had a similar method where he used that technique to bring the steak up to a certain temperature, then he finished it off on a grill.

>>4621948
Yes but you do realize that the other 95 percent of the world isn't as devoted to culinary arts as chefs and the people on /ck/ so chances are they won't know what to even spend 400 dollars or realize that you can get tools that are much better. Stop trying to hate on someones success when half your points don't even make sense.

>took cooking for large party to heart
Do you really think the first thing someone is going to do when buying this is "i'm going to cook so much food for a large party"
>you can construct a better version for under 100$
doesn't this apply for literally everything in existence?
>mad at price
cool, it was their decision to set it at that price and it's not like you don't see other companys doing this (apple/3d tv/computer parts, etc.)
>saging a general questions and making a racist remark
you're just plain retarded.

>>4621993

Firstly, I wouldnt call anything on kickstarter successful.

Secondly, the asian chick said it was a good tool for parties

Thirdly, I dont think you know how to use the word literally properly. Can you build a better car for under $100. Dont think so buddy.

Fourthly, those are more complex items and warrant a significant mark up due to higher R&D and parts costs.

Fifthly, I said nothing racist. I simply stated she was asian. Sensitive much?

Anyways, good luck sounding smart on the internet buddy. You need it.

>>4621859
It's so close to being the same thing. The only differences are it is at a set temperature, it's in a bag, and the flavors of what you're cooking do not mingle. There is no way you could sell this to someone who isn't retarded.

>>4621640
I literally cringed. Cool product none the less.

>>4622034
They raised funds successfully. That's not open to interpretation, they did it and they got the cash pledged. Now they can run around partying and snorting cocaine off hookers' asses until the money runs out.

Or they can build a business. I'm working for a company that did it. Funded a project on Kickstarter, delivered, and is now quite successful. No shit.

>>4622078
>The only differences are it is at a set temperature

That's a big difference when you think about it. The whole idea behind sous-vide is that you want to cook at a very precise temperature so you can get a consistent gradient of 'doneness' throughout your proteins (e.g. steak). Frying, grilling, or slow cooking cannot achieve this since temperatures can be so imprecise.

>>4621640
>dat video

>>4622091
Funds were raised; that is true. However, that does not guarantee success as you stated very comically.

At any rate, I still think it's a overpriced and dumb product. That guy who argued with me did very little to convince me otherwise.

>>4622105
If you want to be hip about it, sure, but you can't tell me to spend $350 on a wand when you can get something to do it for $50.

http://www.amazon.com/Hamilton-Beach-33967-6-Quart-Programmable/dp/B001AO2PXK

>>4621781
why won't she open her eyes? why is she squinting so much?

>>4621837
Holy shit! That garbage is over 300 dollars?! Yeah. I have a really great tool for controlling temperatures, it's called a thermometer and a brain.

that meat looks disgusting.

why don't people just spend $300 on steaks, the practice until they get the perfect medium-rare every time?

So it's just an immersion heater that also creates bubbles in the water?

>>4621881
it's really not tho

>>4622224
>>4622208
>>4622197
>>4622128
>>4622115
>>4621948
>>4621931
>>4621913
>>4621837

>not knowing about sous vide

/ck/ is more pleb than I thought. Why do you even come here?

>>4622247

Oh look, the Asian lady from the video is here.

>>4622252
You mean the person who started this viral thread?

>>4622128
You can't. That one will not keep something at 118 degrees fahrenheit for any length of time. Sous-vide is justified - the kickstarter gadget OP is referring to is not.

I might put one on my wishlist.

>>4622247
Sorry, sometimes /ck/ is just Full of /b/ rejects. Nö idea why. Should have made this Thread 8 Hours Earlier or later.

I wish I could get a home pacojet, but then we're talking serious money. Some equipment is just inherently expensive and anyway trying to replicate restaurant cooking at home is a strange beast.

This thing seems on the high end of what people will accept in a kitchen thing. Costs as much a proper refrigerated ice cream maker but slightly more specialised. If it can actually do 19 liters it's probably worth it though. But then there's the vacuum sealer as well.

>>4622247
'913 here
Dude, I *know* about sous vide, I just think it's fucking retarded.

Poached eggs. POACHED. Not "sous vide'd eggs" or "onsen eggs" or "pretentious fuck eggs".

The prosecution says fuck off back to under your hipster-yuppie-cryptofascist-fruitcake rock. Back to you, Jane.

>>4622290
Just curious, do you know of any alternative to the Nomiku? I'm interested in sous vide cooking, but it does seem a little pricey.

>>4622337
But a poached egg is not the same as a sous-vide egg. Poached eggs are cracked into hot water which can be at an imprecise temperature. A sous vide egg is left in the shell, placed in the water which can be set at a constant temperature. The whole idea is to produce a soft-boiled egg which is a certain level of doneness all the way through. You simply cannot achieve that level of precision with a pot and stove. Poached eggs are great, but they're not the same.

Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMp8HPAM0mY

See what difference a few degrees can make? Sous vide machines are all about precision, which is why they need the fancy and expensive technology in them.

>>4622406
>fancy and expensive technology
I'm actually on your side as far as sous vide being a viable and different cooking process, but here's where you run off the rails.

You can assemble what you need to do this for less than $50 if you're clever and less than $100 if you're not. For the most part, it's not even really the electronics that are the more expensive parts but more your circulation system that has to be able to stand and work being subjected to a fairly high range of temperatures.

Hell, I'm willing to bet from the video, they try to circumvent the entire problem by just pumping air into the water and calling that "circulation" which won't assure you of proper temperature dispersal--and if this is the case, then the price to put this together drops by a ridiculous amount.

>>4622422
Cool. Do you have details on how to build your own?

>>4621540
>cooking in plastic

Enjoy your hormones and carcinogens.

Why did they build the control UI so that it sits out over the pot.. that's stupid. If you clip it to the back of a pot.. now you have to reach over a hot surface to make adjustments... turn the face around, clip it to the front of the pot, and the UI problems are solved.

What should I expect from bi-coastal foodies anyway though right?

I will not be getting one of these for 5 reasons. First is the poor UI design choice I already mentioned.

Secondly, sous vide is a crutch for people who can't cook decently without it.

thirdly, sous vide takes FOREVER compared to conventional cooking techniques which, when done correctly, yeild superior results more qickly anyway.

fourthly, every time you use a ziploc bag needlessly, and throw is away, mother earth dies a little bit. Everytime someone sous vides something, they are using a plastic bad needlessly.

fifth, i can buy an adjustable temperature crock pot for 50 bucks.

to sum up, this is a stupid toy for stupid people.

>>4622454
You just need a logic controller, temperature probe, and a heating element. Throw in a pump unit that can be entirely separate and can withstand temps up to around 200 F and doesn't leak until around 40 F, and you are money.

It would take a little work to ensure it is properly calibrated and you probably want to add in a 200 F thermocouple for safety (a thermocouple either opens or closes at a specific temperature, in this case you want it to open to shut off the heating element just in case), but google can get you the specifics on putting all if this together.

$360 for that? Wtf? I'd rather get this if not make my own:
http://www.amazon.com/Sous-Vide-SVD-00102-Supreme-Water/dp/B004CNVW4Y/ref=pd_sbs_k_3

>>4621540
What is that?

>>4622497
I'd like "What is Google for?" for $300, Alex.

OH SHIT, It's the DAILY DOUBLE! I WIN, I GET $600!

>>4621540
>Nomiku
that looks horrific...and I'm pretty sure that chick squints so hard she can't trll her steak looks like shit and that sure as fuck was no mr.

>>4622466
Neat. Thanks for that. I found a website that explains how to build one, but it seems a little complex. When you say "not clever", how "not clever" are we talking? Because I'm *really* not clever when it comes to this sort of stuff, and I probably wouldn't feel safe using anything electrical that I made.

>>4622542
Can you follow directions? Beyond that, you'll need to do a little reading up on some of the basics of working with electricity, circuits and the like. Common sense will help here (protect your electronics from splashes/water). Beyond that, this is something where the internet is your friend. >>>/diy/ can at times be helpful, but there are a lot of hobbiest electronics websites with people who are happy to help. Try to find a makespace near you, people who go to them are generally extremely helpful and knowledgeable.

Also, just take things one step at a time and take your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEnQ7sn6q-I

>Nomiku
Buy it faget!

>sous vide

"They lined us all up in front of a hundred yards of prime rib -magnificent meat, beautifully marbled.. Then they started throwing it in these big cauldrons, all of it -- boiling. I looked in, an' it was turning gray. I couldn't fucking believe that one."

>>4621548
>makes cooking sous vide economical, affordable
>click purchase to check out price
>mfw

>>4622506
I find that I am able to dislike her without being racist. You should try it.

It should be cheaper considering they used kickstarter for their startup capital. What a bunch of money grubbing Jews.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/nomiku/nomiku-bring-sous-vide-into-your-kitchen

>>4622680
She reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FAI_-woNh4

>>4622619
[ ] rib
[ ] magnificent meat

Choose one.

> $350 immersion circulator
> mfw people don't realise that this is 1/3 the price of a commercial circulator
> mfw people have never had food cooked sous vide

/ck/ I am disappoint

>>4622709

there are lots of british people that have been boiling their meat for centuries. Until someone gave it a French name, people looked upon it as just something that stupid british people do, and the reason everyone laughs at british people for their national lack of culinary skills.

However, now that is has a hipster french name. The big rimmed glasses folks have taken to it, while the rest of the free thinkers in the world see it for what it is. A ruse, an abomination, a trick played on the hipster crowd that just don't know any better.

Inb4 "But it's not boiling.. they put the stuff in a plastic bag first!!! that makes it different!!!"

>>4622709
Why the fuck would I buy that fish tank filter when I can get an actual sous vide cooker for $40 less?
>>4622492

>>4622706
[ ] Prime Rib
[ ] Rib

Pick both and lern the difference.

>>4622718
At around what temperature would you say water boils?

>>4622728
>implying all british water cooking is done at boiling temperatures
>implying that you couldn't sous vide something in boiling water and time it right to get the exact same results.

perfect roast meats are done at 225 for 4 to 6 hours. This temperature represents, A) a temperature above the boiling point of water and b) a temperature that is known to produce perfect roast meats.

please stahp hipster trash.

>>4621540
Jesus fuck, just use a pressure cooker. Once you figure out how, you can make fucking awesome meat that way. It'll be juicy, done to whatever perfection/level of doneness you want.

>>4622718

Confirmed for pleb who doesn't know how sous vide or pasteurization work.

Use a conventional stove and try to simmer water at exactly 57' +/- 0.2' for 90 minutes so you can make rare chicken without getting salmonella. You will have to babysit that fucker for all 90 minutes. With sous vide, you put that shit in a bag, drop it, set a timer, and then pull it out when the timer's done. Now you have what is essentially pasteurized chicken cooked to the desired doneness, and you've had 90 minutes to do other prep because you weren't standing there monitoring your temp every 30 seconds. Now chill that bird down, and you can then still throw it on the grill later to get delicious Maillard reactions on the surface to add flavour without having to worry about internal temp. By planning ahead and using sous vide on your chicken, you've now guaranteed that you will cook a perfect rare chicken breast without hospitalizing your customers, friends, or relatives.

But nah dawg, it's totally just a ruse for hipsters and not extremely versatile.

>>4622758
>confirmed for pleb
>confirmed for pleb
>confirmed for pleb
Stop talking like a damn parrot

>>4622745
you can't sous vide something in boiling water and time it right to get the exact same results

sous vide is putting something in a container of water that is at the desired temperature of the end result and leaving it there until it reaches the same temperature. There is a massive difference in doing this and what you're talking about because doing it this way means that you can achieve uniform temperature throughout whatever you are cooking. Doing it your way means that you have to get the outside over temperature to get the inside to the desired temperature.

I'm not the guy you are replying to and think that this isn't as big of a deal as many make it out to be, but at the same time too, you're just either being purposefully ignorant/trolling or you've no real understanding of the process.

>>4622758
>rare chicken

>>4622758
>so you can make rare chicken without getting salmonella.
>guaranteed that you will cook a perfect rare chicken breast without hospitalizing your customers, friends, or relatives.

I take it you have no clue at all about what you are talking.

>>4622765

> on the internet
> getting assravaged about memes
> being wrong about sous vide

Pick 3.

>>4622758

If you want your chicken cooked like that.. then you could just go to the refrigerated section of the store and buy precooked, grilled chicken slices. How do you think they perfectly cook chicken in an industrial setting home slice?

but nah.. it's the perfect way for hipsters to slow cook their chickens at home, so that they aren't eating that processed stuff that is sold at the grocery store. also, enjoy your cancer from the plastic bags.

i'll use traditional cooking methods that I have perfected over the last 20 years of cooking to make food without having to boil it in a bag. thanks though.

Haha wow that's overpriced

>>4622769
You think you're funny, mate?

>>4622758

this guy thinks chicken breasts should take 90 minutes to cook.. before you put it on the grill.

when, in fact, chicken 10 minutes to grill perfectly. 5 minutes per side on the grill.

hipster trash, please stahp. you're doing it all wrong.

>>4622768
>>4622770
>>4622783
Are you (possibly 3 people) actually this dense?

>>4622770

Why would you be limited to chicken if you owned a circulator? You aren't. You can cook vegetables, eggs, fish, whatever. You can buy chicken from a grocery store like that, sure, but if you do you don't get to control the flavour. You certainly can't buy eggs or leeks from the store pre-cooked to the doneness you want. You need to stop being mad about this: we're not all 45 year old master chefs, we don't all have the skills of someone who has done this for a living for his whole life. Just because you don't want to cook that way, doesn't mean noone else should be able to. I really don't see what your objection is other than 'this isn't how I'd do it therefore hipstertrash'. That's not an argument. That's an opinion. Just because something can be done one way doesn't mean it should only be done that way.

>>4622821

you can buy all those things in the refridgerated section of the grocery store cooked in a bag too.

>>4622821
>I really don't see what your objection is other than 'this isn't how I'd do it therefore hipstertrash'


1. takes longer
2. require more speciallized equipment - which is fairly costly
3. plastic bags are going to give you cancer
4. still have to finish the "old fashioned way" to get maillard, so you might as well just cook the old fashioned way, which is faster anyway.
5. with the money you would spend on a sous vide machine, you could equip an entire kitchen worth of "claissical" cooking equipment... including a stand mixer.

but you are hipster trash that just wants to have your meals boiled in a plastic bag.. so none of those are real arguments.

>>4622840
>buy all of those things in a grocery store cooked in a bag too

Ah, so you are that dense.

>>4622821

how is it easier to put something in a plastic bag and leave it for 4 hours. seems to me it is easier to throw some meat on a grill for 15 minutes.

what is so hard about cooking a steak?!?!


>well you see.. cooking has to be so simple and easy that you just literally can't screw it up no matter how dense you are. or else people will screw it up. sous vide isn't really gourmet cooking, so much as it is cooking for people that literally can't cook at all.

ok.. i think i get it now....

sous vide is the microwave of the 2000s. it's just retarded because the goal of a microwave was speed of cooking, where sous vide tries to make it as full proof as a microwave meal, but doesn't take into account that most people are awake about 16 hours a day and don't want to spend half that time waiting for something to come out of a bag.

>>4622854

No my point is that you are that dense. You don't even realize that the food you wouldn't dare eat at the grocery stores, are cooked using industrial sous vide processes. Which, so long as you can do it at home, is all of a sudden a great way to cook/process your food.

>>4622857

Even better than that. He doesn't realize that spending 300 bucks a plate at a nice restaurant for sous vide food, is literally the same as spending 4.50 at the grocery store for a bag of precooked chicken. They are both prepared the exact same way.

>>4622857
Ah, so that's why you haven't once accurately described the process of sous vide.

>>4622372
Codlo is also on KS right now.

>>4622840

1. Marginally. The time added to the active part of the process is this: vac-ing, setting the temp, opening the bag. If that 1 minute of additional work is a problem for you, please reconsider your priorities. If you consider passive cooking time to be a negative thing, why use any method that isn't the fastest?

2. Fair, but along with #5, consider this: the type of person from whom a sous vide device holds appeal probably has a bunch of expensive gadgets already. If you don't have pots and pans, you're probably not in the market for non-essential gear. If you can afford it, and will use it, why not? Expense is only a problem when people legitimately cannot afford something. If someone can afford a Mercedes, and choose to buy one, you can't tell them 'hey, you only needed an entry level Toyota'. You can tell them that, of course, but then you're just a dick.

3. Foodsafe plastic. Safe intake levels. Don't make every component of every dish for the rest of your life sous vide. Problem solved.

4. The risk of salmonella from traditionally cooked rare chicken is higher than its sous vide counterpart which carries literally zero risk because it has been pasteurized. In addition to having the tools and knowledge to cook in the traditional manner, you also have an extra tool. Why is having more options available to you a bad thing?

http://www.savvyhousekeeping.com/poor-mans-sous-vide/

>>4622872

> the only description of sous vide that I will accept as correct is "boil in bag" because I am a pedantic mongoloid

I'm beginning to see the issue here.

>>4621540
>sous vide
>cooking in plastic bags

That's the most retarded thing I've heard of. It's like they've never heard of a covered casserole dish and an oven. Instead they overcomplicate things and use leeching plastic to top it off.

>>4622886
> the only description of sous vide that I will accept as correct is "boil in bag" because I am a pedantic mongoloid
Why would I accept that because it's fucking incorrect and what you or whoever the hell else is posting has been claiming sous vide is?

>"exact science"

Sickeningly, base autism.

>>4622879
>If someone can afford a Mercedes, and choose to buy one, you can't tell them 'hey, you only needed an entry level Toyota'. You can tell them that, of course, but then you're just a dick.

This is arguable. If the purchase of a mercedes damages the environment, by introducing another car to the environment, when they already had a perfectly good working toyota, then i think the person that bought a needless toyota or mercedes could be said to be just as big of a dick. in the case of a sous vide machine, it's a useless machine, that will be dirtying single use bags that will just end up in the land fill. All this, while traditional cooking methods would have been faster, easier, and led to less waste/pollution.

>food safe plastic

i think that's what they told us back in the 50s.. remember that?

the risk from salmonella from PROPERLY cooked taditional cooked chicken is 0%. if you want to talk about improper cooking techniques.. then you have to admit that literally taking a shit into the plastic bag and serving it to someone, which would potentially be bad for them. why not have more options available? because you have all the options available already without sous vide, to make a perfectly cooked and safe meal.

>>4622900
>because you have all the options available already without sous vide, to make a perfectly cooked and safe meal.
Without sous vide, how do you cook chicken rare and have it have no risk of salmonella?

See, you keep deleting words from what other people are saying, adding in your own qualifiers, and then pretending that you are talking about the same thing.

Use a bird that has been inoculated against salmonella. You do realize that all English birds are inoculated against salmonella right?

Seriously.. you americans should look into it. It costs about 17 cents per bird... For a bird that lays eggs, it's roughly 1 cent per dozen.

>>4622904

Why are you starting with diseased birds?

You can get a real set up for maybe $50 more, there's no reason at all to buy this.

>>4622904
>See, you keep deleting words from what other people are saying, adding in your own qualifiers, and then pretending that you are talking about the same thing.

I think you guys are simply misunderstanding each other. You both seem to be wanting to argue points the other person either doesn't care about or agrees with you on. Autism at the highest order.

>>4622908
>>4622914

Better question.. who eats chicken rare anyway?

And how rare is it really after you flop it out on the grill and cook it for maillard reaction...

why cook something twice, when you could just cook it properly once...

>>4622913
Actually, no. He's saying that is possible to do everything with "traditional" kitchen tools and equivocating sous vida to "boiling in a bag" when neither case is remotely correct.

>>4622917
How is sous vide not boiling in a bag at a set temperature?

>>4622916
more people would were it safe.

how rare is it really? Pretty damn rare. I'm not sure you know how searing works.

Because you can't achieve the same results "cooking it properly once".

>>4622900
>All this, while traditional cooking methods would have been faster, easier, and led to less waste/pollution.

>faster
Yes, for some things.

>easier
No, not at all. Sous vide is idiot proof. Put food in water bath. Come back later. It might take a long time, but that's "hands off" time where you can be doing something else and don't need to hover over a timer. Unlike traditional cooking methods it's very forgiving so you can have the food cooking in the background while you are doing something else. You don't have to remember exactly when to flip or remove foods from the heat. If you get distracted there's no harm done.

>Less waste
Maybe. Of course sous vide gets bags dirty. But on the other hand it's very energy efficient so the amount of electricity/gas/charcoal used is often lower than with normal cooking.

Mind you, I'm new to this thread here. I'm not saying that sous vide is perfect or anything like that, but it irks me to see such a polarized view here. It's neither the greatest cooking method ever nor is it stupid. Like any cooking method it has pros and cons, and also like any cooking method there are retarded overpriced gizmos like OP being marketed for it. You don't need a fancy megabuck immersion circulator to cook sous vide. Likewise I don't need egg scissors to prepare eggs, a slap chop for spices, or the latest seen-on-TV gizmo to make poached eggs in the microwave.

>>4622919
boiling implies a temp over 100 C.

you COOK food at a precise temp SV. theres a big difference there.

>>4622916
if you never had chicken at 60 C, fine. if you'd had it, you would know.

>>4622919

the autistic is taking the term "boiling in a bag" to mean, literally, boiling.

because that's what autistic people do. they take things overly literally and then argue semantics instead of just realizing their core logic on the situation is wrong, based off all the other points that the other arguing party made.

such as, takes longer, doesn't come out the same due to lacko of maillard, food won't be cooked to perfection after maillard cooking because at that point it will be over cooked. if you have adjusted for the over cooking, then you have allowed potential for salmonella again and might as well have just cooked "traditionally" anyways. expensive. yet another single use gadget that no one needs.

but.. someone called it "boiling in a bag" so none of those other arguments are valid and they can just aut out on the one theing they will fixate on.

>>4622923
>Yes, for some things.

Such as...

>>4622916

Thanks to the magic of radiant heat, as long as you don't go straight from circulator to the grill, you can get maillards without affecting the internal doneness with around 1min of grilling.

>>4622924
Fine. Putting a bag in warm water.

>>4622923
>No, not at all. Sous vide is idiot proof.

you still have to sear for maillard.. there is lots of room for fucking that up. probably more diificult to get a proper sear, than if you were just to traditionally cook the whole way through and gain maillard at the same time.

>more energy efficient

lets heat a gallon of water (a common material with one of the highest specific heats) from room temp, to some set temp for cooking at.

instead of using direct heat to just cook the food we want to cook.

yeah.. that sounds more energy efficient.

>>4622926
I mean which foods would be cooked faster using sous vide.

>>4622925
calling it something is different from equating, which is what the other poster was doing.

As for the "core logic" OF FUCKING COURSE IT DOES NOT COME OUT THE SAME. If it came out the same then it would be entirely pointless as a different cooking method.

Overcooking is easy enough to avoid: use a really hot pan for browning and congrats, you've transferred little heat to the innards of the piece you are browning. Damn that's a complicated process.

And I love how you are entirely missing out on how the poster equating it to boiling in a bag was using that fairly literally to the tune of that's what he based most of his argument on AND understanding the difference between just boiling shit in a bag and sous vide is where you come to understand how this is a different cooking process and has potential uses.

Too stop from overcooking on the stove, can't you just lower the heat?

>Taking colloquialism literally

I bet when people say they're boiling mad, you take out a thermometer to check.

>>4622925
If you're making something that needs maillard, you sear it afterwards you fucking retard. Your posts just keep showing how little you know, you're embarrassing yourself.

>>4622930
>you still have to sear for maillard.. there is lots of room for fucking that up. probably more diificult to get a proper sear, than if you were just to traditionally cook the whole way through and gain maillard at the same time.

Searing for malliard is super easy. I suppose that someone could mess that up, but if so that same mistake would affect traditional cooking just as well. However there's no risk of overcooking during the sous vide step, whereas with normal methods you can overcook the food if you leave it on the heat too long. You also have the concern of matching your cooking for malliard with cooking the meat through. Common mistakes for normal cooking include having the outside overdone while the inside is still raw, or by overcooking the outside to get the inside cooked properly. Both of those problems disappear with sous vide. Again, I'm not trying to say that sous vide should replace traditional cooking--I'm simply pointing out that it DOES have some advantages in the "easy" department. Time consuming? Sure. But not difficult.

>>4622936

Actually, I am the person that was making the "boil in a bag" references.. and I was using the terminology loosely whether you get mad about it or not.

I watched the video for this stupid device and I realize that the 57 C she recomends cooking that poor steak at is not 100 C, the boiling point of water.

Now let's get literal here though, since you seem so interested in dong that. Since we are cooing in a bag.. the liquid we cook in doesn't really make much of a difference so long as it is transferring heat to the food in the bag and cooking it at a set temperature. alcohol boils at 67 degrees celsius put the whole device in a vaccuum and you can easily lower the boiling point to well below 57 degrees. go aut somewhere else. just stahp.

>>4622964

In fact.. another way to sous vide would be to use water and a vaccum. instead of setting the heat to a temperature.. you could set it to boil.. and set the vaccuum to maintain pressure that boils water at a certain temperature. in this way, sous vide, would literally always be boiling in a bag, at diffferent temperatures based on pressure, as the temperature of the water is buffered by the waters inability to get over it's boiling point.

omg.. sous vide, really is boiling in a bag.

>>4622959
Why can't he just cook is slow and low on a pan and use that same pan to sear afterwards? He can't be cool like you by taking 3 times as long just to cook meat in a bag and then have to pan sear anyways.

>>4622970

this actually might have a benefit of speeding up sous vide cooking times, since the convection of boiling water would probably transfer heat to the food more efficiently.

>>4622972
>efficiently.

*rapidly

>>4622930
>yeah.. that sounds more energy efficient.

I'm guessing you don't have an engineering background here. I'll admit it can seem counter-intuitive if you haven't studied heat transfer but I'll do my best to explain. Heat flow is based on the difference in temperature between the "hot" and "cold" objects. The higher the difference in temp the more heat flows. This is what governs not only cooking (heat flowing into the food) but also the waste heat of any cooking process...such as the heat lost through the walls of your oven, or the heat from the sides of a pot heating up your kitchen. Sous vide water baths are generally at very low temperatures compared to most other cooking methods. That's why many sous vide recipes take so long to cook. The Delta T is so small that it takes a long time for the core of the food to heat up and be "done". However that same low Delta T also means there is less heat wasted to the environment. Of course you are correct that it does take energy to heat up the pot of water, and that's a disadvantage for sous vide. However it's not so simple because sous vide also has lower wasted heat compared to an oven or a grill, etc. For relatively "short" cooking times a conventional method is usually more efficient. For longer cooking times sous vide is usually more efficient.

Anyway even if you don't want to bother with the underlying physics there are plenty of people who have measured the energy use of sous vide cooking and it often is much lower than traditional. It isn't always, but many times it's better. Here are some examples:

http://www.sousvidecooking.org/sous_vide_electricity_energy_consumption/

http://forums.egullet.org/topic/139754-the-electrical-cost-of-doing-sous-vide/

>>4622976
Did they measure the energy it took to make those disposable plastic bags? Because let's face it, nobody is going to use that bag more than once most of the time.

>>4622980
still probably far less than all of the wasted heat in other cooking processes

>>4622976

Actually graduated from Cal Tech and took thermo dynamics.

Didn't read the rest of your post. Heating a gallon of water, when it isn't necessary is a waste of time.

Simple experiment, go cook a chicken breast in a pan and boil a pot of water at the same time on 2 different burners set to the same temp. You will be done with the chicken before the pot boils. Even if the water boiled faster than you could pan cook chicken, and it won't, you'd still have to waste all the energy keeping the water hot - while it slow cooked for 2 hours.

Marinate on that for a bit and next time you post links, try not to make them links that are obviously biased.

>>4622984
How so? A cast iron pan cost $20 and lasts a lifetime. Also cooks faster than your boiling bag method.

>>4622985

before the autistics get hung up on "boiling," it still takes more energy to heat a gallon of water to 67 degrees, and hold it there for 2 hours, than it does to pan fry a chicken breast. end of story.

>>4622997
Yep. Only because of waters specific heat capacity. A small pan used to cook a chicken breast won't take anywhere near as much time or energy as a sous vide method (especially since you are going to pan fry it some in the end anyway, faggots)

>>4622985
>Didn't read the rest of your post

Perhaps you should read it then.

>>4622997

Indeed.

And likewise it takes less energy to heat a water bath to 67C and cook a roast in it for 20 hours than it does to heat up an oven to 400F and cook in it for 4 hours.

>>4623032
Actually, there you're wrong.

>>4622460

/thread

So many plebs here. Yes the product is expensive but that doesn't negate the use of sous vide. Getting that perfect medium rare every time impressing friends with your "skills" is great. Sous vide 6 steaks a couple hours in advance, can be left for however long because it won't continue to cook, then take them out and sear them on the grill. Perfect steaks quick and every time.

Fucking plebs thinking sous vide is remotely close to a slow cooker, pots and pan, oven microwave blah shit.

>>4623047
Maybe he leaves his oven door wide open while trying to cook at 400.

>>4623142
Those friends are probably more impressed if can cook their steaks without dumping plastic bags in a landfill.

>>4623142
Seriously. I made this thread hoping that we could perhaps discuss sous-vide cooking in general, and one nice user explained that I could make my own immersion circulator for less than $100, which I'll definitely be looking into. But I never thought that there would be so many plebs who think that sous-vide is simply a pretentious hipster way of doing something that could be achieved with a slow-cooker. Unless I'm being trolled, which I hope is the case because I had a much higher opinion of /ck/ before now.

If you're going to give your product a fakey japanese name, at least have the decency to pronounce it that way. "nom-eekoo" makes me cringe.

>not cooking sous vide
>claiming you're "devoted to the culinary arts like chefs"

Stay stupid /ck/

>>4624701

Gooks don't speak jap.

>>4622766
>pretentious twat detected

>2013
>not buying a $40,000 industrial laser cutting table to pattern your sushi wrappers

>>4624706
nothing wrong with cooking sous vide; or the use of immersion circulator; we just want to be able to do it without putting a hole in our wallets.

>>4624923
it's not like 300$ is that much money though...

>>4624923

I made my PID controller for 30 dollars and bought a brand new food saver vacuum sealer for 10 at a flea market.

and yeah, the plastic bags are food safe for water baths, and you can re use them. I bought a 100 foot roll of it, all you do is cut the bag longer than usual and then re seal it a bit shorter.

not a big deal if i'm doing artichokes or shit like that

Sous vide: The new 'what sauce should i put on my steak'

>>4624928
for some of us thats 1/3rd of our months income.

>Knocking a technique used by 3* Michelin chefs around the world because they haven't heard of it.
>Having not heard of it in the first place.
>Continuing to defend their baseless opinion instead of looking it up, realising their ignorance and shutting up.

/ck/ is brilliant at being stubborn about things; post a recipe, ANY recipe, and someone on /ck/ will tell you that it will taste disgusting that you're retarded for cooking it. I remember one thread where someone was genuinely claiming to have better taste than Paul Bocuse and that he had no idea how flavours went together and that putting parsley with chicken was "dumb as shit".

>>4624928
That's about 15% of the money I make in a year.

>>4624972
>2013
>cooking in plastic

Fullretard.jpg

>>4624972

I don't know why you guys keep claiming that the people saying sous vide is shit are people that don't know about it or haven't eaten food produced by it. It's 2013. This is not new. Cooking food in a water bath has been around as an industrial food prep process since the 60s (and no i am not talking about pastuerization) and the hipster foodie crowd gave it a cute french name at least a decade ago. We've all tried sous vide. We all know what it is.

We all still think it's a shit way to cook food at home.

It's fantastic for restaurants that need to get it perfect so they can charge 300 bucks a plate. It's fantastic for hormel, tyson, kraft and any other large operation that has to perfectly cook millions of pounds of meat a day before shipping it in cute little card board boxes.

It's a waste of time and money for the home cook. With a little care and thought, the home cook can prepare a superior meal to a michelin chef or industrial process, because they have the ability to focus on the single dish they are preparing and cook it perfectly anyway. They don't have a million other things going on and they aren't trying to short order cook 8 different meals for 12 different 8 tops.

I'd rather a steak cooked at a greasy mom & pop place over in a ghetto with the cook wearing a wife beater with sweat stains on it than to use this thing. What the hell? This is like the ultimate hipsterist thing I seen in the kitchen.

>>4625052
you can still cook SV with a pot and a thermometer. works for shorter cooking times of <3 hours. but for something like 72 hour shortribs or whatever it's just not practical.

the critique here has mainly been twofold:
one, SV is redundant which us nonesense,
and two, the gadjet is overpriced.

i don't find either convincing. i don't have much money but i generally find ways to get shit i really want.


>>4625064
if i spend 40 - 80 bucks or whatever for a perfect steak i want to prepare it as well as possible and 2 degrers can already make difference.

you also seem to fundamentally misunderstand how haute cuisine works. you get normal portion sizes when you eat a la carte.

but whatever, you prolly just see pictures of single courses during tasting menues and think: "gosh, that sure is a small portion, at my all. you can eat diner i can get much more. those stupid rich people..."

>>4625079

Who said anything about portion sizes?

You're resulting to ad hominem attacks based off assumptions, because you can't even begin to truly defend a 350 dollar appliance that just warms water so that you can cook food in a bag.

Shits a joke man. Just stahp.

>>4625185

Oh look it's jahst stahp guy again. I always picture you saying that with a limp wrist and a lisp.

You should start tripfagging and use a brony avatar.

>>4625187

Oh look, it's ad hominem attack guy again. You should make up more delicious butt hurt.

>>4625187
seconded

>>4625185
and nothing i said was ad hominem, i was making a generalized jest based off things i have read here more often than i care to count.

maybe you feel addressed though, can't help you if you do.

so as not to be accused to not defend the topic of the discussion again i'll say this:

the nomiku, or any immersion circulators really are useful and providing their specific function exclusively. yes, you can perhaps RIG stuff, but then you just made your own IC. so not an argument against ICs or SV in general.

also maybe some of us value their time more than a couple hundred bucks and possible failure of the whole operation if we are not the techncally inclined sort.

i for one would have to buy the tools to build an IC in the first place and i doubt it would come out cheaper than just buying one in the first place anyway.

so yeah, why should i care if you were not able or willing to shell out for the thing. as i said, you could use your stove and a probe.

tl;dr: niggers!

(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)

>>4625217
>also maybe some of us value their time more than a couple hundred bucks

...So you are going to spend 3 hours cooking chicken instead of 12 minutes. 72 hours on ribs, instead of 4 hours...

Your logic is flawless.

>>4625236
>72 hours on ribs - with no smoke flavor other than liquid smoke, cooked in a bag

Fixed that for you.

>>4625236
how am i spending that time? am i standing in front of the thing?

how is waiting for an hour for chicken breast in the water bath any worse than cooking my ragu for 10 hours on the stove? are you against long cooking times in general?

if i slow roast a whole chicken for 5 or 6 hours, is that bad too?

if you honestly claim there is no difference in the result of different cooking times and temps then there really is nothing more to discuss. you'll either learn better or you won't your gain or loss either way.

>>4625251
>how am i spending that time?

>implying anyone said you were spending that time.

>>4621540
What a waste of fucking money. $350 for this pretentious bullshit, to make a sickly looking steak which you have to sear anyway, because nobody want steak cooked like minute rice. This is cooking for autists obsessed with exactitude, there has not been an improvement in how to cook a steak since the development of iron. Nobody wants something that's cooked exactly the same temp all the way through, it's boring. That's why they sear that shit afterward and ruin their special exact digitally-displayed temperature that took 40 years in a ziplock to achieve.
>have you ever tried to cook a steak medium well and found it impossible
NO, incompetent bi-coastal foodie, I have not.
>Top chefs like thomas keller are famous for their consistency
they're famous for making delicious food, and the fact that some millionaire celebrity chef uses an expensive time-wasting piece of equipment does not justify it for home cooks. I hope all of the pretentious "foodie" chef-worshipping fucks out there who waste money on this shit because they don't know how to cook a medium steak get botulism and die because they chose to buy up some trendy gadget instead of learning how to use a cooking technique that was perfected an hour after man discovered fire.

>>4625294
if you don't care for the difference, fine.

but call those of us who do autist at your peril.

i call it discerning. you call it what you want.

>>4625311
>i call it discerning
are you enlightened by your intellect right now

>>4625317
don't forget my fedora and my delicious neckbeard.

>>4625311
The one on the left looks more delicious.

>>4625311
Don't really care for that.
Why? Because cooking with fire is infinitely more delicious.