How do you prefer your steak? Spare no detail

Tuna steak. Cooked with some olive oil, possibly pepper, medium, erring on the side of medium-rare.

I have had beef steaks that I like, but in general it's not a dish that does much for me. So if I'm going to make a steak for myself, it's going to be a tuna steak.

Do tuna steaks have a similar tang to them as canned tuna does? My experience with seafood is abysmal.
 
Do tuna steaks have a similar tang to them as canned tuna does? My experience with seafood is abysmal.

I never eat canned tuna except in casseroles where it's one of many flavors, so I'm afraid the tang gets lost in the recipe and I can't really distinguish it :(. But in general I'd characterize the tuna steak as much heartier, with a more layered and complex flavor than canned tuna, while being less "fishy".

I suspect the canned tuna loses out on the complexity and depth due it its having been fully cooked, as well as cut into pieces and mixed with water (or olive oil, though I only buy the water variety) and (in most brands) vegetable broth. The tang also could also be due to the aluminum can if the insulation from aluminum is less than perfect, or it has sat a long time. Aluminum will rub off and affect flavor if given enough time (like copper or iron).

I have cooked tuna steaks to well-done before, by not paying close enough attention to it, probably due to browsing CFC while cooking :lol:. That resulted in it being drier and losing some of the flavor depth. It was more similar to, though still better than, canned tuna at that point.

Now I think I'm going to run out and buy one to make for dinner tonight!
 
Looking at some infographics I found in /r/steak, it seems that I like my steak right in between rare and medium rare. As long as it's well seared on the outside and nice and juicy and pink/reddish in the inside, I'll be happy though. When eating out, I always ask what the chef recommends. He knows what he's doing so I let him decide. (He/she always goes with medium rare though, at least from my experience)

Here's a descriptive infographic:



Here's the official guide from /r/steak:

Blue Rare is barely cooked at all. It is the absolute juiciest steak, but it has an almost "Jello" texture to it that a lot of people do not enjoy. I like it, but unless you're a hardcore carnivore, you probably won't.

Rare is still red, but cooked JUST past the "Jello" phase. It is still extremely juicy and many consider it to be the only way to eat a steak. This is how I normally cook my own steaks.

Medium-Rare is cooked to the point that the very center (about 1/3 of total thickness) is still red, while the rest is pink. It retains some of the juiciness, while adding in some chewiness. I think it's a bit too dry, but most people seem to prefer it this way.

Medium is cooked to the point that there is no longer any red at all. Instead, it should almost all be pink. It's a bit dry with only a hint of the juiciness you taste in a rare steak and is overall a bit more chewy.

Medium-Well only has pink in the center 1/3..the rest is brown dry and very chewy. The only reason to cook it this much is if it's a really crappy cut of steak, or if you're very worried about food-borne illness.

Well Done is all brown. There's no juiciness here. You're cooking up a chew toy. You might as well not even eat steak at this point. Go have a hamburger.

I fully accept that people will want to eat what they want to eat, even if they steer from these guidelines. I used to put ketchup on cottage cheese sandwiches, so I'm not going to scold you. But I will disagree
 
Medium to well done is good for me.

See, I have no qualms with people who like the left side of that infographic. It's not for me but I don't think the person is objectively wrong. The problem for me comes in when people present a food as being incorrect. It becomes less "you have your tastes and I have mine" and more "you are wrong and I reluctantly tolerate your wrongness". The hyperbole in particular is arrogant and, to be blunt, inane. I've never had a dry steak. It's never been burnt or of the same consistency as jerky.

If that guide was to be believed, anything past medium rare is a violation of the Geneva Convention. :dunno:
 
I do not eat steak.

I don't eat steak either.
And why would we?

Steak is sexist, after all.
Steak is rape culture.

You people now think that's an outrageous claim, don't you?

Well, consider the evidence:

1. This
2. Ask Peta.
3. Is it called "Salad&BJ-day"?
4. Last but not least:
Spoiler :

Obviously.

q.e.d.
 
See, I have no qualms with people who like the left side of that infographic. It's not for me but I don't think the person is objectively wrong.

As with any discipline, since I did not study culinary arts in school (or anywhere else), I defer to the experts. They all say that the perfect steak is medium rare, and that a well done steak is a waste of meat. My tastebuds agree with their sentiment, so that's my position.

Like I said you can eat your steak in any way you like! I don't have to agree that it's the best way to eat steak though.
 
Thank you for reluctantly tolerating my wrongness. You have your tastes and I have mine. :)
 
Thank you for reluctantly tolerating my wrongness. You have your tastes and I have mine. :)

I eat weird things too, so I understand

We're all different and can't be perfect in all the ways. Some people will worship rocks and some people will eat well done steak and that's the beauty of humanity, we're all a bunch of weirdos who get along just enough to maintain a complex society and civilization, and we're all weird in different ways and that's life
 
I like my steak right in between rare and medium rare. As long as it's well seared on the outside and nice and juicy and pink/reddish in the inside, I'll be happy though. When eating out, I always ask what the chef recommends. He knows what he's doing so I let him decide.

Here's a descriptive infographic:

I prefer my steak to be more medium according to the image details, while it'll still taste tenderly, there aren't so much red parts left.
 
A good steak needs salt, pepper, and nothing else. If you must have sauce it goes on the side. With a quality cut of meat that is all you need.

I have mine medium rare with a good crust so high temp, very short duration.
 
A lot of the taste of a good cut of steak comes from the juices inside. If you cook it all the way through, you are removing a lot of that taste, not to mention the texture that goes along with it.

Why not eat it raw then? That way you maximise the juice content and you also preserve that wonderful "raw meat" texture that is so delightful. Anything other than a raw steak isn't a steak.

As with any discipline, since I did not study culinary arts in school (or anywhere else), I defer to the experts. They all say that the perfect steak is medium rare, and that a well done steak is a waste of meat.

Ehhhh... yeah. I can understand deferring to the experts if you're having an operation, or wanting to overhaul the wiring in your house, or wanting to achieve a stable orbital insertion, but... what "expert" is required when deciding what tastes nice to you?
 
Last edited:
Thick piece of blade or eye fillet

Plentiful salt an hour in advance (so it seeps in, creates surface liquid and then is reabsorbed)

Chuck onto high heat (I have electric stovetop so I have to go near maximum), flip regularly, aim for 7 minutes total heat time because that gives me medium rare to medium (my wife likes lots of pink so rare to medium rare, so she takes 5 minutes)

Plentiful pepper and a bit of minced garlic in the last couple minutes on both sides. Black pepper nearly encrusts it.

Drop a lump of butter on as you remove from heat

Wrap in foil for 5 or 10 minutes to let it rest
 
Last edited:
1. acquire expensive steak

2. acquire this



3. acquire this



4. cook steak to preferred doneness

5. torch the living hell out of that surface

6. flaky salt and coarse pepper

by far the most fun way to prepare a steak, tho I don't think it's necessarily superior to grilling or pan frying
 
Medium to well done is good for me.

See, I have no qualms with people who like the left side of that infographic. It's not for me but I don't think the person is objectively wrong. The problem for me comes in when people present a food as being incorrect. It becomes less "you have your tastes and I have mine" and more "you are wrong and I reluctantly tolerate your wrongness". The hyperbole in particular is arrogant and, to be blunt, inane. I've never had a dry steak. It's never been burnt or of the same consistency as jerky.

If that guide was to be believed, anything past medium rare is a violation of the Geneva Convention. :dunno:

There are proper ways to prepare foods, to provide maximum flavor, optimal texture, and in the case of meat, maximum liquid retention/reabsorption and elimination of the risk of food-borne illness.

Usually the reason proffered for wanting a steak cooked to medium or beyond is an aversion to "undercooked" meat, not because it is itself a superior preparation method for any reason actually connected to the final product as food. I have no problem if you prefer a sub-optimal method of preparation, all I ask is the self-awareness to recognize it as sub-optimal :)
 
Do tuna steaks have a similar tang to them as canned tuna does? My experience with seafood is abysmal.

I don't think tuna steak tastes like fish. It's more like chicken with a meatier texture. It just depends on how rare it is I guess, the more you cook it the more chicken like it gets.
 
There are proper ways to prepare foods, to provide maximum flavor, optimal texture, and in the case of meat, maximum liquid retention/reabsorption and elimination of the risk of food-borne illness.

I have no problem if you prefer a sub-optimal method of preparation, all I ask is the self-awareness to recognize it as sub-optimal :)

Yeah, except not really. You're describing your preference as most optimal but this is not an objective fact. Steak is not objectively better when cooked rare. The things you listed are, at best, preferences. More people just prefer it cooked rare.

This again twists around to the core of the problem. I'm content in seeing this as a matter of preferences. My way is not better or worse than your way. You're not content unless you're seen as objectively correct and anyone who prefers otherwise is simply a wrongy mcwrongface who should dwell on how wrong they are in the presence of the righteous.

Usually the reason proffered for wanting a steak cooked to medium or beyond is an aversion to "undercooked" meat, not because it is itself a superior preparation method for any reason actually connected to the final product as food.

I eat fresh, raw ground beef. My aversion is not to undercooking.
 
Yeah, except not really. You're describing your preference as most optimal but this is not an objective fact. Steak is not objectively better when cooked rare. The things you listed are, at best, preferences. More people just prefer it cooked rare.

I didn't say "better," I said prepared to provide an optimal food product along several axes of measurable aspects of a food product.

The idea that there are optimal preparations, or a narrow range of optimal preparations, for food products is in most cases not a controversial idea. Pasta is a good example - I think few people would argue with the notion that if their preference is for pasta cooked 3 minutes longer (or shorter) than the time indicated for al dente or firm preparation, then their preference is for a sub-optimal preparation of pasta. Ditto for people who prefer old coffee, or burnt pizza, or any number of overcooked, undercooked, or stale food products.
 
Top Bottom