Speaking from minimal cooking experience, why is this called a reverse sear? Is a non-reverse sear where you sear the outside first and then cook the inside afterward? What makes one of these a better technique?
I think it’s called a reverse sear because the ‘sear’ step happens second—after the low-and-slow cooking—whereas it’s a more common technique in cooking to start with the high heat to get the browning, and then lower the temperature.
Note that bacteria grow faster in hotter temperatures, until you reach the temperature where they die. (125°F, one of the temperatures mentioned in the article, is not hot enough to kill bacteria, and is thus one of the worst parts of the Danger Zone.) For large cuts of meat like a steak, you’re mostly worried about stuff that’s on the outside of it, and so a quick sear at a high temperature will kill stuff that’s on the outside, and then you can comfortably cook at a lower temperature. My best guess is this is not a major problem at the times discussed here (30 minutes in the danger zone is within USDA guidelines) but probably was a worse idea when food safety was worse. Also note that when you put the steak in the oven, the oven temperature will be safe, in a way that means you don’t need to be worried about the outside or contamination from the oven.
[As mentioned in a linked article, the commonly stated justification was to “lock in the juices”, which isn’t true, but it wouldn’t surprise me if food safety was the actual impetus behind that advice.]
[[edit: I should also note that lots of recipes, like stew, start off with something that you want to fry (cook at temperatures higher than water boils at) and then later add something that you want to boil or steam (cook at water’s boiling temperature). It is way easier to fry the meat and then add it to the boiling water than it is to boil the stew for a while, separate out the meat, and then fry it at the end.]]
Yes, traditionally people would sear and then put in the oven so the “reverse” in “reverse sear” is alluding to the fact that you’re switching the order by going oven first and sear second.
Some other comments:
I’ve never heard anything about the origin of the reverse sear being related to food safety, or better food safety is part of the reason to use it now.
Not that Vanvier is saying anything in conflict with this, but since food safety was brought up I want to say that food safety thing with chicken (as an example) is kinda annoying. I think this video does a good job explaining it.
Basically, you want to kill salmonella and other bacteria. The heat needed to accomplish that is a function of both temperature and time, not just temperature. See page 37 of this USDA guide. At 165℉ salmonella is killed instantly. At 160℉ it takes 13.7 seconds. At 155℉ it takes 44.2 seconds.
Conventional wisdom says that you need to cook it to 165℉ to be safe, but that’s just the guidelines being dumbed down because nuance leads to mistakes. In reality you can (and probably should!) cook it to a lower temperature if you hold it there long enough.
To me, the big reason to reverse sear rather than to the traditional sear-then-finish-in-the-oven is because of the better browning you get with the reverse sear. After taking it out of the oven with the reverse sear, the exterior is nice and dry, and since moisture is the enemy of browning, this dryness helps you get particularly good browning.
The other thing is that for physics reasons I don’t quite understand, the reverse sear is supposed to get you more even cooking with less of a temperature gradient.
125°F, one of the temperatures mentioned in the article, is not hot enough to kill bacteria, and is thus one of the worst parts of the Danger Zone.
While it is slightly safer to cook at a slightly higher temperature, this is on the extreme edge of the danger zone and is probably a safe temperature to sous vide at for reasonable periods of time if you’re confident about your thermometer, with the caveat that it won’t pasturize the inside of the meat (although we’re usually more worried about the outside).
Speaking from minimal cooking experience, why is this called a reverse sear? Is a non-reverse sear where you sear the outside first and then cook the inside afterward? What makes one of these a better technique?
I think it’s called a reverse sear because the ‘sear’ step happens second—after the low-and-slow cooking—whereas it’s a more common technique in cooking to start with the high heat to get the browning, and then lower the temperature.
Note that bacteria grow faster in hotter temperatures, until you reach the temperature where they die. (125°F, one of the temperatures mentioned in the article, is not hot enough to kill bacteria, and is thus one of the worst parts of the Danger Zone.) For large cuts of meat like a steak, you’re mostly worried about stuff that’s on the outside of it, and so a quick sear at a high temperature will kill stuff that’s on the outside, and then you can comfortably cook at a lower temperature. My best guess is this is not a major problem at the times discussed here (30 minutes in the danger zone is within USDA guidelines) but probably was a worse idea when food safety was worse. Also note that when you put the steak in the oven, the oven temperature will be safe, in a way that means you don’t need to be worried about the outside or contamination from the oven.
[As mentioned in a linked article, the commonly stated justification was to “lock in the juices”, which isn’t true, but it wouldn’t surprise me if food safety was the actual impetus behind that advice.]
[[edit: I should also note that lots of recipes, like stew, start off with something that you want to fry (cook at temperatures higher than water boils at) and then later add something that you want to boil or steam (cook at water’s boiling temperature). It is way easier to fry the meat and then add it to the boiling water than it is to boil the stew for a while, separate out the meat, and then fry it at the end.]]
Yes, traditionally people would sear and then put in the oven so the “reverse” in “reverse sear” is alluding to the fact that you’re switching the order by going oven first and sear second.
Some other comments:
I’ve never heard anything about the origin of the reverse sear being related to food safety, or better food safety is part of the reason to use it now.
Not that Vanvier is saying anything in conflict with this, but since food safety was brought up I want to say that food safety thing with chicken (as an example) is kinda annoying. I think this video does a good job explaining it.
Basically, you want to kill salmonella and other bacteria. The heat needed to accomplish that is a function of both temperature and time, not just temperature. See page 37 of this USDA guide. At 165℉ salmonella is killed instantly. At 160℉ it takes 13.7 seconds. At 155℉ it takes 44.2 seconds.
Conventional wisdom says that you need to cook it to 165℉ to be safe, but that’s just the guidelines being dumbed down because nuance leads to mistakes. In reality you can (and probably should!) cook it to a lower temperature if you hold it there long enough.
To me, the big reason to reverse sear rather than to the traditional sear-then-finish-in-the-oven is because of the better browning you get with the reverse sear. After taking it out of the oven with the reverse sear, the exterior is nice and dry, and since moisture is the enemy of browning, this dryness helps you get particularly good browning.
The other thing is that for physics reasons I don’t quite understand, the reverse sear is supposed to get you more even cooking with less of a temperature gradient.
While it is slightly safer to cook at a slightly higher temperature, this is on the extreme edge of the danger zone and is probably a safe temperature to sous vide at for reasonable periods of time if you’re confident about your thermometer, with the caveat that it won’t pasturize the inside of the meat (although we’re usually more worried about the outside).
Douglas Baldwin suggests cooking at 130°F because one type of bacteria (Clostridium perfringens) can keep multiplying up to 126.1°F, but if you look at the growth rate in more detail, it’s already growing very slowly at 50°C (~122°F), around 1/6th of the rate at the worst temperature (~109°F).