Soldato
I think you've misunderstood sous vide somewhat
Sansaire sous vide circulator
- Thread starter glitch
- Start date
But you must already know the answer - you can't have picked a figure of an hour out of thin air without having done at least a little research into the subject.
It would have made more sense if you'd asked 'why does it take an hour' or 'what does an hour do to the egg' instead of a question that's only going to elicit a somewhat closed response.
Anyway, the answer to your question is - it will, but is does also depend on what your definition of 'cook' is.
The longer answer to the question I think you meant to ask, is that you can set an egg at temperatures above 60° by using cooking times of 40-minutes or greater, but you can achieve hugely differing results by varying the temperature and the time you cook the egg for.
The reason for that is down to the differing types of proteins within the egg and the effect that heat has on them - tight whites (the white that clings to the yolk) start to set first but only firm up at higher temperatures, loose whites (the watery, outer white) remain so until they reach a high temperature and yolks start to set at middling temperatures and solidify as you reach the higher numbers.
But while these reactions occur within specific temperature ranges, the effects can be modulated by increasing the time the egg is held at a certain temperature - for example, an egg cooked at 63° for 45-minutes will have a completely different yolk texture to one that's been cooked at the same temperature for double the time. Which one you prefer will depend on how textural you are when it comes to food.
In short, there's just as much room for experimentation with eggs as there is with any other food that's cooked in a water bath, if not more so.
In theory, everything should 'taste nice' with sous vide cooking as you're keeping all the flavours locked-in the bag with the food, meaning less of it escapes.
Clearly that's not always going to be the case, as various cooking methods produce different results, but on balance it's safe to say that cooking sous vide should produce more flavourful food.
But there's a lot more to it than just making things taste nicer - for me, it's equally about the textural element to this method of cooking.
Soldato
I'd love to see a "Sous vide tried and tested recipes" thread... with cooking times and hints and tips. Anyone care to start? 
Caporegime
I see the merits of the method, to cook food and keeping all its juices and original cellular structure so it's as fresh as it can be. In terms of chicken and what not, I guess I like it hot and really want to make sure I don't kill myself cooking chicken at 60c. I've seen Heston doing it in an oven, it looks intriguing I must admit. Think I like my meat hot, not lukewarm ?
The weird side of me also thinks….this is way too easy or something. I guess I like a challenge to cook something, like cooking a steak perfectly pink in the middle with the outside just right. Or soft boil an egg just right. Or oven cook a chicken so it's moist yet with crunchy skin?
That was wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more complicated than a passing comment justified. Or so I thought. I knew it takes longer, but what it really comes down to is, was the wait worth it over a soft boil egg?
Last edited:
Only you can answer that one.
Taste-wise, there's nothing to call between the two. Both have been cooked in their shells, directly in water. It's the texture of the egg that's going to set something cooked in a water bath apart from one that's been boiled.
Next time you're in Brighton, get yourself down to 64 Degrees and have one of their eggs. One way or another it will broaden your horizons.
Caporegime
p.s. the hour thing was just a guess, if you boil water to 100c and turn it off and leave an egg in there for 8mins to get a soft boil egg. Cooking it in 60c with that thing would take longer, it didn't need research, it just common sense.
At a core temperature of 60° you're not going to kill yourself. With the meat being held at that temperature, sterilisation occurs within about 30-minutes.
Given you'd probably be holding chicken at 60° for at least an hour, if not double that, there's little risk of making yourself ill.
Unless you've got a mouth lined with Asbestos, you're probably not putting meat in there which is truly hot - even something with a core temperature of 60° would probably be slightly uncomfortable and around 50° is roughly where you want to be for an edible temperature.
With a chicken that might have cooked at 180° in your oven for an hour, you'll need to rest it first and then carve it up once the core temperature has dropped sufficiently and the meat has had time to relax its fibres. And I'd wager that's not likely to be much above 60° unless you're really impatient.
The beauty of cooking in a water bath is there's no resting required once the meat has come out of the bag. You simply finish it off and then plate it up, which means there's very little loss of core temperature during the transition from bag to plate.
The 'weird side' of you doesn't really seem to grasp what sous vide cooking is actually about - you appear to be thinking along the lines in which the media portrays it.
It's not an easy fix for perfect results and it doesn't guarantee better-tasting food - it's just another method of cooking with its own set of specific benefits and drawbacks.
Caporegime
Media? the first I've seen that is Heston cooking chicken about 2 years ago.
The second time was seeing that thing in a blue bucket yesterday in GD.
Third time was this thread.
4th time was reading a paragraph on wiki but it's nothing I wasn't expected it to be really.
The second time was seeing that thing in a blue bucket yesterday in GD.
Third time was this thread.
4th time was reading a paragraph on wiki but it's nothing I wasn't expected it to be really.
Common sense dictates a loss in temperature of 40% would increase cooking time by 650%?
Caporegime
But was I far off ?
Man of Honour
The rest of your points have already been dealt with but this one I really had to comment on.
Basically..what you're saying makes no sense and really just highlights that you don't understand what sousvide is. Now, we could try to explain to you at length (as Glitch has done) but it would be a lot easier for all of us if you just researched it yourself rather than come out with a lot of really weird statements that require us to justify something that is self-evident to anyone with a basic understanding of the subject.
I realise that this may sound a bit short but really... I wouldn't expect these kind of comments from you tbh.
Btw, I only ever use my phone camera to take pictures because I prefer a challenge. I also only ever use a flat head screwdriver to unscrew phillips-head screws. Don't even get me started on my use of a wooden block whenever I need to hammer nails.
I'd love to see a "Sous vide tried and tested recipes" thread... with cooking times and hints and tips. Anyone care to start?
I'd love to do this but compared to Glitch and a few others my sous vide knowledge is pretty limited. I'm also still experimenting with nearly all my recipes so I wouldn't want to post something that wasn't quite up to snuff
Last edited:
Caporegime
I am just trying to get my head round it that's all.
I understand the science. I understand the search for something cooked to perfection (subjective)0, since this method is pretty idiot proof, it's like putting a ready meal inside a microwave, but instead of 8 mins, it's 8 hours or something. But no risk of anything blowing up, no risk of water evaporating away and hardly any chance of over cook. It almost sounds like a dream?
What I am trying to get my head round is, for example, is a steak cooked this way any better than say a steak over a BBQ?
Is an egg cooked this way nicer than a soft boil?
I am seriously curious about it and curious to try, I am not dissing it (it may sound like it) but the concept of boiling food in a bag draws memories of student days where you get a packet of pasta and sauce in a bag from Iceland…scarred for life.
I understand the science. I understand the search for something cooked to perfection (subjective)0, since this method is pretty idiot proof, it's like putting a ready meal inside a microwave, but instead of 8 mins, it's 8 hours or something. But no risk of anything blowing up, no risk of water evaporating away and hardly any chance of over cook. It almost sounds like a dream?
What I am trying to get my head round is, for example, is a steak cooked this way any better than say a steak over a BBQ?
Is an egg cooked this way nicer than a soft boil?
I am seriously curious about it and curious to try, I am not dissing it (it may sound like it) but the concept of boiling food in a bag draws memories of student days where you get a packet of pasta and sauce in a bag from Iceland…scarred for life.
Man of Honour
It's far from idiot proof. It requires a very different approach to cooking.
As for the rest - go read up on it.
As for the rest - go read up on it.
Soldato
Take your steak example.
You have 6 steaks on a BBQ. Would you be able to guarantee the doneness of those steaks across all 6? With resting etc included? No, you can't. You can become a really good judge of it, but not absolute.
Now cooking in the water bath you know that a steak cooked at 57*c will be medium rare.
Take the thickness of your steak and work out the cooking time:
For a 0.5 in / 1.25 cm steak this is about 15 minutes.
For a 1 in / 2.5 cm steak this is about 45 minutes
For a 1.5 in / 3.8 cm steak this is about 90 minutes.
For a 2 in / 5 cm thick steak this is about 2 hours.
Then you know for a fact, that the steak will not overcook from the chosen medium rare, because at that temp the proteins will only be in the state they are.
So you have a much more consistent result in your cooking. It also (in restaurants for example) allows you to cook these steaks (or any other food) take them out and ice them (reducing the temp right away) still in bag and they will keep then, at the doneness of your choice until you take them out and sear.
However anything under a 2" steak should not be done sous vide, as there's no way t get a decent bark on it, without destroying all the work. This is my issue with it. Its good for occasional use, but like so many things as a day to day it's pointless, takes to long and doesn't add much.
That's not to say its pointless far from it. But it would be something that would only see a handful of uses a year. I love my steaks but it's not often I can buy one big enough to make sous vide worthwhile.
However I will fire up BBQ when I'm cooking steak.
That's not to say its pointless far from it. But it would be something that would only see a handful of uses a year. I love my steaks but it's not often I can buy one big enough to make sous vide worthwhile.
However I will fire up BBQ when I'm cooking steak.
Soldato
You need thicker steaks 
Duck though, I'm looking forward to trying. Same with the pork belly and veg as well.
Duck though, I'm looking forward to trying. Same with the pork belly and veg as well.
Why pork belly. That needs heat to crisp up.
Yes when you can afford a decent sized steak then it's worth while. But you seen the meat I buy and I would still only have big enough steak one or two times a year.
I do want one, don't get me wrong. But I think people are over exaggerating their new toy and will soon tire off it. Other than a few tomes a year.
Yes when you can afford a decent sized steak then it's worth while. But you seen the meat I buy and I would still only have big enough steak one or two times a year.
I do want one, don't get me wrong. But I think people are over exaggerating their new toy and will soon tire off it. Other than a few tomes a year.
Man of Honour
I've been using my sousvide regularly since October last year. It's still something I use in one way or another for the vast majority of cooking I do.