Cambro/Holding vs Resting

[lostclusters]

I have been reading the book, the part that addresses the myth of resting. My head hurts trying to differentiate between holding and resting. To me they seem at least similar. And there seems to be those here that consider holding at 150-160 degrees f, for a couple of hours essential for pork butts and beef briskets. It is not my intension to start a conflict here. I am looking for some help to unravel this conundrum.

Also, would I hold beef and pork at the same temp? I saw a video where Aaron Franklin said he holds brisket at 140 drgrees f, but did not say for how long.

[j_keegan]

I've read the book too, and I THINK the difference is that putting meat in a faux cambro and "holding" it is usually by necessity; and "resting" is by choice because you feel this does something beneficial to the meat. For instance, I don't typically feel the need to rest my meat - when it comes off the grill or smoker, we eat it. But, a few weeks ago I had to make pulled pork overnight and take it with me in the morning - but we weren't going to eat until lunch. So, out of necessity, I put it in a faux cambro to hold the temperature steady (preserving moistness/doneness) until it was time to pull and eat.

I do say this being one of the least experienced people here though. Many will have much more to say on this subject. But that's my idea of what the difference is between the two.

[HawkerXP]

This is what I believe is being said.

Hold = Pulling the meat (usually a large hunk) at probe tender, wrapping and putting in either the oven or cooler and monitoring the temp to keep above 140*.

Rest = Pulling the meat (steak, chicken, pork or lamb chop...) at your desired doneness and at most, lightly covering with foil for a minimum amount of time before serving.

Less then 140* is the do not let your meat get to temp unless headed to the fridge.

[Steve R.]

"Holding" is typically done to maintain a certain internal temperature, while "resting" at room temperature allows the internal temperature to drop. At least that's how I think of it. I think the myth part comes into play when you're talking about needing to rest a thinner piece of meat, such as a steak, prior to serving.

[RonB]

My thoughts, (worth what you paid for them... )

Some cuts are cooked hot and fast, ans some low and slow. The reason for low and slow is that some meats are tough when cooked fast. Tough cuts need as much time as possible at high temps to get as tender as you would like, so resting allows those cuts to maintain a high temp for longer without overcooking and drying out.

A naturally tender cut does not need this holding period - it's already tender. Resting is supposed to allow the meat to redistribute the moisture, but Dr Blonder has show this is not necessary.

[kmhfive]

I think the others have given a great overview of the difference. There's some science to it: "Cheap", tough cuts, like pork butt and beef brisket or ribs have a lot of really terrible connective tissues. Over a long time at lower temperatures, these break down into gelatin which will hold moisture. So, on these types of cuts, we like cooking to probe tender (i.e. those tissues are broken down) and then holding, tightly wrapped, to allow the gelatin to absorb moisture and give the "juiciness" we seek.

On tender, "expensive " cuts, we don't have to break down connective tissue, so we cook those to medium rare to preserve moisture. If done right, no need to "rest". Go right to eating!

[Dr ROK]

Ditto what everybody else has mentioned. If you hold a brisket or pork butt in a cambro or faux cambro for 4 hours, you'll be amazed at how it impacts/improves the final product. Resting a steak to let juices redistribute isn't really necessary. By the time you get your plate filled and set down to eat, it will have already rested plenty. Resting a turkey for a short period however is beneficial in my experience. Basically resting is short term at room temp, and holding is long term where you are keeping the temp relatively stable and at a higher temp than room temp.

[thom08]

Is there an upper limit to how long you could/would hold a hunk of meat wrapped in a faux cambro? In a couple weeks will be my first time cooking for a larger group and I'm working out the timing to get a couple briskets cooked and in the cambro and then throw on several racks of ribs. Normally the ribs take about 6 hours... would this be too long to hold the briskets without compromising them? Obviously the brisket would need to be monitored and stay above 140F...

[Spinaker]

I have found that the longer the better. Up too about 6 hours.

[HorseDoctor]

Totally agree with the above! I wouldn't worry much about holding a little over 6 hours if I really had to, but would rather use 6 hours as the upper limit of what I would do on purpose...

[thom08]

excellent! thanks for the comments! very helpful

[Polarbear777]

I think the section on resting is not explained well nor is the myth really debunked, just shown that it makes little practical difference.

For non non barbecue items cooked to lowing temp like steaks, reverse sear or sous vide doesn't load up as much heat so you don't overcook. If not overcooked a rest isn't needed because the outside of the meat won't push too much heat into the inside and the juices never got squeezed out at a too high temperature in the first place.

I think it depends entirely on your finish to serve time and what temp you pull the meat at. If you can eat right away, remove the meat from the heat at your target temp, get it on the plate and eat.
On the other hand if you are cooking something thick and you know there will be a delay of 5 minutes or more, removing the meat the right distance below your target temp and letting it coast up to finish while resting is just as good.

Perhaps the required rest myth is really only applicable if a high enough percentage of meat is too hot (above target) when removed. Maybe the rest is simply a technique to mitigate a non-optimal, but commonly practiced, cooking technique.