Sous Vide pre-tenderize a steak, then use normal reverse sear?

[IdahoSmoked]

I like reverse-seared steaks where the initial cook is in the oven (170 F until 115 F internal temp, then sear in cast iron with butter) - IMHO, it tastes and looks better than a sous vide+searing type of 'reverse sear'. BUT our beef supplier isn't always so careful in labeling steaks, so it's hard to know for sure if I'm pulling a tender one out of the freezer or not ...my most recent butchering has a big stack of 'New York Steak" and a big stack of "Rib Steak". Kinda lazy or in too much of a hurry ... who knows?

As a possible fix, I'm considering 2 to 2-1/2 hours of sous vide at 130 F to let enzymes do their magic, then ice bath, lightly salt w/Kosher salt, and then put it back in the fridge for the next day, ... or at least 2 hours later so the meat can get clear down to fridge temp to guarantee consistent temp throughout the piece of meat. While chilling, I'd put the steak on a rack to let it dry on all sides. I am thinking that this initial sous vide is a "pre-tenderizing" step, and once chilled and dried on the outside, the steak can come out of the fridge and be cooked like a normal reverse-sear steak (see above). Anyone see anything wrong with this plan?

[fzxdoc]

I think this is something that you'll have to work out as you experiment with this technique. Time is tenderization for sous vide, and for a chuck-roast-tough piece of meat, for example, 2 hours might not be long enough. Your plan looks like a good place to start, though.

I'm not a fan of reheated meat (because I to me it often loses flavor--or gets an unwanted flavor added--in the reheating), and that's what your plan essentially is. Your taste buds may have a different response.

Kathryn

[Hulagn1971]

Personally, I think you will lose too much moisture. Once it's chilled in the ice bath the fibers will shrink and more moisture will be in the bag instead of in the meat. As you cook it again, reverse sear style, it will lose more moisture. Just my opinion, give it a shot and see what you think.

[Oak Smoke]

We have our own beef processed so we end up with some steaks that aren’t as tender as I would like. Sooner or later we need to eat those sirloin steaks that aren’t as tender as a ribeye. I had wondered what I could do. I have a sous vide set up but had never used it for steak. I got much needed guidance from acorgihouse and several others here. I now sous vide them at 131 F degrees for 4 hours then sear on either a hot grill or a CI skillet. We’re very pleased with them. No it doesn’t turn them into ribeyes but they are tender and good.

[acorgihouse]

Forgive me, but I don't think this will work. If you chill the cooked steak down to fridge temp, you will need more than a quick sear to bring it to eating temp. Unless you like steak cold in the middle, that is. Searing a completely chilled steak will require enough time to heat it through, and that is going to change the degree of cooking you did in the sous vide. Now, if you sous vide to ~120 degrees, or even little less, then "sear" long enough to heat through, you may hit the magic cook temp and degree, but won't be as clear. If you sous vide, then quickly chill down in ice bath, the meat isn't going to be fridge level chilled all the way through, IMHO. A better way, albeit takes a little longer, if you want to cook ahead, is to sous vide your steak to the 130F like you said. Then chill, and when you want to eat, throw back in the sous vide to 130F so you warm through, but don't cook further, and then you can do quick sear. Only MHO, of course, I haven't tried your method so don't actually know. Also, I agree, if your steak isn't perfectly tender, and you are looking for the sous vide to do "enzyme magic" for tenderness, I agree with Kathryn fzxdoc that 2 hours might not be long enough. Of course, if you have enough steak, trial and error can be a lot of fun!?
Edit: I just read this again, and realized: did you mean do the sous vide, chill to fridge temp, then cook in oven per usual method and reverse sear when target temp? That might work, but is a lot of cooking when could be done more easily. Like said above, a good sous vide for 3-4 hours, then sear, is more efficient IMHO. Still, who knows? Let us know how it works out.

[treesmacker]

"A better way, albeit takes a little longer, if you want to cook ahead, is to sous vide your steak to the 130F like you said. Then chill, and when you want to eat, throw back in the sous vide to 130F so you warm through, but don't cook further, and then you can do quick sear." This is what I do for convenience, most of the time freezing and then reviving in sous vide. Chicken breast, pork, beef all work - different sous vide temps and times of course.

[IdahoSmoked]

Interesting info ... I hadn't thought of reheated meat tasting differently. IMHO, the best sear comes from a DRY steak ... when you put the steak in a cast iron skillet, it takes a certain amount of energy to heat up that outer layer of meat (the thin 'sear zone'), then it takes a TON of energy to 'dry' or evaporate water out of that same layer, then finally, the Maillard reaction occurs in the (now dry outer layer) to create the nice sear we all want.

The problem with Sous Vide is that it leaves the meat too wet, even if dried with paper towels. And while water is evaporating, the inside of the steak is heating up ... if you stop searing at the right IT, then the sear won't be complete since too much heat energy went into evaporation instead of creating the sear. The benefit of Sous Vide is the tenderization.

So, tenderization is one of the reasons for my proposed sequence of steps, but a dry outer layer for creating a nice sear is as well. To clarify, and I will experiment to see what works best and post back here ... here are the proposed steps:

Tenderize & dry the meat:

1. Sous Vide the thawed steak at 130 F for 2+ hours
2. Remove from the water bath and cool ASAP, remove the meat from the bag and dry it as best you can (paper towels)
3. Lightly salt both sides and set on a rack (on a pan) and let it dry for at least a few hours in the fridge (a typical steak prep to help the sear)

THEN perform a standard reverse-sear:

1. Place pan/rack/steak in a 170 to 200 F oven, thermo probe in place, and heat to about 115 F internal temperature, e.g. this allows another 15+ degrees for searing so you don't over-heat the interior of the steak. While heating, preheat a cast iron skillet to AYE YI YI(!!) HOT TAMALES OW YOW YOWWW!! HOT!!!
2. Remove steak from oven, add a tablespoon of high-smoke temp oil to the cast iron (it'll smoke anyway), then add the steak and at least 1 tablespoon butter, flipping every 1 minute until internal temperature reaches about 126 to 128 F or so (over-run will raise it to 131 to 133 F or thereabouts)... spoon melted butter all over the steak while searing.
3. Serve, no rest. Resting may result in a medium steak instead of a medium-rare and the sear is best right out of the pan anyway.

For the experiment, just follow the steps above for reverse searing the usual way ... no Sous Vide pretreatment ... I guess I've done that a lot anyway

[shify]

I am strongly of the opinion that a quick sous-vide to cook just to refrigerate and then reheat slowly provides zero benefit over a regular reverse sear. It does not save time nor make more tender, so I fail to see the reason for it. It is just precooking a steak and then reheating it.

If you want to SV it, either do it to cook and sear immediately (paper towel dry and let sit on wire rack for ~10 min and surface should be plenty dry to sear) or do a long SV bath to tenderize ala a 24 hr chuck roast and then finish cooking

[RlsRls]

I agree with Shify. Seems like double work to have to water bath AGAIN to bring meat to proper temp and then sear. What am I missing? How does it save time? and If it doesn't , why do it?

[IdahoSmoked]

UPDATE: Finally ran the experiment ... I used sous vide to cook an 1-1/2" thick rib steak w/bone for 2-1/2 hours at 130 F. Dunked in ice water, place in fridge for a day. Removed from fridge and the vac pack bag, then set it on a rack at room temp for 4 hours to both dry on all sides and to come up to room temp. Baked, on a rack, at 300 F for approximately 15 minutes to bring the internal temperature up to 115 F, then seared both sides (in avocado oil and butter - butter added towards end of sear) for 2 minutes on each side. That brought the internal temp to a perfect 130 F. The RESULTS? Noting that I used black pepper, salt, and granulated garlic for seasoning (no herbs this time), the reverse sear created a great crust and flavor. BUT the inside of the meat was a lighter pink ... almost like a medium-well steak, even though the temperature of the meat never got over 130 F. Odd. While the steak turned out very tender, it was missing the usual 'beef texture' that is part of what makes a steak good... not mushy, but texture didn't seem right. Would I do it again? For me? No. I like the darker pink and natural beef texture that comes from a normal reverse-seared steak, even if not quite as tender as could be if the steak were perfect. My wife would disagree ... for her, tenderness seems to be the only rule and she liked the sous vide reverse-sear steak. To each his own I guess, but I suspect most people here would agree with me ... don't use sous vide to tenderize a steak. The trade-offs aren't optimal.

[IdahoSmoked]

After reading an article that said, "My wife said it was the best steak I ever cooked for her!", I did try sous vide one more time ... short story: SV is not for me, not for steaks. This time, the test steak was a rib eye, lots of marbled fat. SV'd for 2 hours at 131 F, flash chilled with ice water, then in the fridge for a day. Next day, brought to room temp and seared it on an open BBQ until the IT was around 129 F, let sit for 5. IT came up to 131 F. RESULTS: Sear and internal color/doneness was just right, steak turned out very tender and had as good a crust as you can get on a BBQ (I prefer cast iron pan with oil, then butter and baste the steak with the melted butter). THAT said, the fat was gross and as though uncooked (you can't render fat at all at 131 F), and while medium rare in the center, the steak was oddly squishy - not a pleasant mouth feel. SO, that wraps up my experiments with SV. As far as I can tell, the traditional reverse sear is FAR superior ... not 'a little better', but astronomically better (oven a 250 F, cook steaks on rack to 115 F, sear in a 450-ish F cast iron pan, 2 minutes each side and check the IT, basting with melted butter (same cast iron pan) as you go. Seasoning and herbs up to you ...)

[Huskee]

shify Impossible! I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.

[TripleB]

Shifty As the needle point I have up on my wall in my office states, "Those who think they know it all, annoy those of us who do". Ha ha.

[TobyB]

A propane torch will take care of the fat. I use it while I am reverse searing the steak. I don't particularly like sous vide for beef cuts either. I feel that it gives the meat a slightly mushy texture that I do not find appealing. I love using sous vide for chicken and for thin cuts of pork, like chops.

[klflowers]

I just tried this - I know, I know, no pics... I SV steaks and sear in cast iron regularly and I like them. But I don't cool and rest and all that - I SV at around 130 for a couple hours, take them out, dry them off, salt and pepper, get the pan to just smoking, open the windows and let her rip. This time I SV'd 2 strips at 130 and put 2 on the kettle at about 250. In order to time them right I did the SV in advance and chilled them; when the ones on the kettle got up to around 80 deg I put the SV ones on. I got lucky because the kettle steaks got to about 125 when the SV ones were at around 100. Stoked the fire and seared them all. The SV ones were the perfect all pink color but drier than the kettle/reversed seared steaks. They were all good though.

I will keep doing them both ways - SV and CI when I am lazy, kettle when I am energetic...

[Panhead John]

I’ve never owned an SV machine or even seen one in person, so what do I know? But…..I just don’t understand why someone would feel the need to SV an already tender cut of steak like a Ribeye or NY Strip. It seems to me it’s just an unnecessary step for little to no benefit. I wouldn’t want a steak that is even remotely mushy or too soft. Just like my ribs, I want at least a little bit of a tug to the meat. Since joining Costco several years ago and being DONE with select grade steaks, I’ve never had a problem with any of them being too tough. The best ones of my life have been done 100% on the kettle, usually reverse seared.

[klflowers]

That's because you are an uneducated heathen

[Panhead John]

😢😢 There you go again klflowers , hurting my feelings……😭 You know how sensitive I am.

[GolfGeezer]

One more in the SV camp for thick steaks - 1.5”-2”, even more for Cowboy steaks that can get to 3”. It is about temp control, not tenderness for me. 2 hours at 130*, pull and dry and let cool until SnS is roaring, then sear. Perfect medium rare, no problem with overcooking, etc. No mushiness and no problem with the fat marbling. Maybe thicker fat is not appealing, but I ain’t eating that anyway.

thinner cuts, just flip, flip, flip, etc until 125*. Carryover does the rest of the cooking.

[Missin44]

If you sous vide a steak longer than 4 hours or so the meat will break down to mush. It'll still be cooked to whatever temp you set, but the texture will not be very appetizing. I never Sous-vide a steak longer the 1.5 hr.

[Missin44]

I’ve never owned an SV machine or even seen one in person, so what do I know? But…..I just don’t understand why someone would feel the need to SV an already tender cut of steak like a Ribeye or NY Strip. It seems to me it’s just an unnecessary step for little to no benefit. I wouldn’t want a steak that is even remotely mushy or too soft. Just like my ribs, I want at least a little bit of a tug to the meat. Since joining Costco several years ago and being DONE with select grade steaks, I’ve never had a problem with any of them being too tough. The best ones of my life have been done 100% on the kettle, usually reverse seared.

You don't sous-vide a steak to tenderize it. Where did you get that idea?

[Panhead John]

Previous comments have mentioned that as one of the reasons to SV.

[Missin44]

You don't sous-vide a steak to tenderize it. Where did you get that idea?

Panhead John, that's a fair point. So you wouldn't use it to tenderize a steak. You can use sous-vide to to tenderize tough cuts like brisket or chuck roasts. Tenderizing is a function of low temps AND time. Going off on a bit of a tangent you can sous-vide chicken to temps well below the 165 deg recommendation, this is also a matter of temp and time. Serious Eats has a good article on this, AR probably does also. I sous-vide chicken breasts for 1.5 hr at 150 deg, they come out very juicy and never dry. Great for chicken salad BTW.