Is having to cook "low and slow" a myth?

[barbefunkoramaque]

Originally Posted by cancerguy99

That's what I'm here for. And based on your above post, I understand the difference between the "low and slow" and the "hot and fast".

Thank you. No disrespect taken.

No No Noii was directing the comment at

crock potting... essentially braising without the searing first....

Grilling and broiling are nearly the same but contemporaily it is thought that grilling is on a grid, thereby causing grill marks and broiling is under a fire, which causes no marks.

pit cooking is a semantical difference only depending on how high the grate is above the coals... too low its grilling, too high its

AND the discussion was about low and slow versus hot and fast WHICH IS NOT GRILLING DUE TO RANGE OF TEMPS

BBqing as we do it is essentially roasting....


First.. this discussion has gone awry and then people begin to comment on the untopical.

Crock Pot cooking, and we have mentioned this many times on here, is not BBQing... but also it is not simply a technique that is laughable. Its is partly braising... which is the same process as foiling, or panning and even wrapping in butcher's paper and continuing the smoke as I do... In some cases it is also a technique I use called banking and covering, which I do when I am smoking say 60 Brisket Packers in one night... my smoker, The Brazos, holds 30 at one time laid out but I can group them on the nuetral side and cover them with a sort of non glued papermeche of soaked butcher paper and continue cooking them for 4-7 hours while the new ones get their smoke.

the thread was about low and slow versus hot and fast.... not crock pot and grilling. Nothing wrong with either and should not be used as a punchline thats all.

Frankly, we all are wrong if we want to be traditional about it..... who here smokes on a hand dug open pit after simmering their beef in a broth of water, salt pepper, juniper berries and bay leaves??? Anyone?

[barbefunkoramaque]

Originally Posted by jrb03

There is a difference between 220 low and 325 high. Im in the middle, 250-275. I cant tell any difference in the product if the backwoods is at 225 or 275, except 225 takes longer.

this could depend on your rub as well...

read my old thread on salt and ratios of seasoning in rub...

http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/sh...=salt+funk+rub

I used to notice what you were talking about when I had an aggressive rub (one with more than 4-5 powdered spices)

when i added a tri level to the act the 275 was kicked up drastically and the flavor from the same rub was driven into the meat more...

[barbefunkoramaque]

Originally Posted by Against The Grain

I have always started off Hot to sear the meat, then let it get low and slow to fininsh.

I wonder why Scott does not return my emails about video?

I really want to pop some of my **** in one of those smokers with all my **** on it and at my temp... LOL How high do you guys go?

Jim.. when you take the Grand daddy or something to cook in Galveston do you ever deviate from their rules?

[vermin99]

I had some grilled ribs that a friend cooked up on a Independence Day that turned out pretty good. I did some ribs on Sunday I did low and slow and they turned out a lot better than the grilled ones I had the day before.

[Bamabuzzard]

It seems there is no "formal" definition from a temperature standpoint of when you cross over into "grilling" or at least anything I can find. It seems "grilling" according to a lot of definitions is more defined by the positioning of the meat in relation to the fire and the surface it is being cooked on than anything. But I'm no expert just enjoy doing what I do when I get a chance to do it.



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/grilling
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/grilling

[jrb03]

Originally Posted by barbefunkoramaque

this could depend on your rub as well...

read my old thread on salt and ratios of seasoning in rub...

http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/sh...=salt+funk+rub

I used to notice what you were talking about when I had an aggressive rub (one with more than 4-5 powdered spices)

when i added a tri level to the act the 275 was kicked up drastically and the flavor from the same rub was driven into the meat more...

My pork rubs are high sugar, so your correct, they dont take to high heat. When I have cooked brisket at 300+ then thinner parts of the flat came out tough and in general I didnt like the results. 250-275 works great for everything I smoke, plus that is the temp my Party like to cruise at. I dont consider that high heat smoking, but I know alot of people do. Im just happy the days of stressing if the smoker got over 230 are over.

[swibirun]

Like many others have said, I have tried both and my PREFERENCE is low and slow. I think I can tell a difference, especially with ribs.

An another thing.....you get to drink more cold adult beverages if you go low and slow ;)

[Saiko]

Originally Posted by jrb03

Im just happy the days of stressing if the smoker got over 230 are over.

Amen brother! I remember back in the days when I would have temp spikes, and just go into complete paranoia thinking my ribs/brisket/butt was "ruined" because my temps had creeped over 250.
I would also argue that a high heat brisket takes just as much skill as a low and slow, just doesn't take as long. As I stated previously though, I prefer the the taste of a brisket that's either done at around 275 (or a low heat / high heat combo) more than a pure high heat brisket done at 325 plus.
I've never tried a high heat rib, and never will. I like em just the way they are, and a 5-6 hour smoke is enough time for me to relax and have a few brews, get some yard work done, watch some football/baseball, etc.

[barbefunkoramaque]

Originally Posted by swibirun

Like many others have said, I have tried both and my PREFERENCE is low and slow.

One last comment... and no I am not knocking you... the majority of complaints regarding texture, tenderness have been on people on this site who profess to prefer or only to have tried low and slow. It makes me wonder nearly every time.

[landarc]

I have not tried the high and fast brisket method, but, I do agree with Saiko that if it does work for brisket that would be great, but, ribs in 5 to 6 hours works fine for me. When the smoke gets into that double digit hour range, then I am gonna want the high and fast as a method to consider. A 6 to 8 hour pork butt would be nice if it is tender and tasty.

[Wampus]

Originally Posted by barbefunkoramaque

I suggest everyone that makes this argument research their cooking terminology. I say this with respect.

Understood. I take no disrespect either.

I'm just wondering that if "low & slow" is a myth and completely unneccessary.....then what are we all doing? If you can get the same result from a cook at half the time...then what's the point?

I say this with the beat of intentions and mean no disrespect to the thread poster. I'm new to all of this, so I'm just asking. After reading the replies, apparently there is a good argument to be made that "hot & fast" is a viable substitute. So again, I ask, "Why low & slow?". There's got to be a reason, right? I mean if the first guy that thought, "I wonder if I can get a better product if I cooked this low & slow?" and be discovered that it wasn't much different......wouldn't BBQ have died right then and there?

(I know that cooking on a spit over a fire has been goin on LOOONG before any of us.....not something that was all of sudden "invented", but you see my point, right?)

Trying to learn here. No offense meant.

[Bamabuzzard]

Originally Posted by Wampus

Understood. I take no disrespect either.

I'm just wondering that if "low & slow" is a myth and completely unneccessary.....then what are we all doing? If you can get the same result from a cook at half the time...then what's the point?

I say this with the beat of intentions and mean no disrespect to the thread poster. I'm new to all of this, so I'm just asking. After reading the replies, apparently there is a good argument to be made that "hot & fast" is a viable substitute. So again, I ask, "Why low & slow?". There's got to be a reason, right? I mean if the first guy that thought, "I wonder if I can get a better product if I cooked this low & slow?" and be discovered that it wasn't much different......wouldn't BBQ have died right then and there?

(I know that cooking on a spit over a fire has been goin on LOOONG before any of us.....not something that was all of sudden "invented", but you see my point, right?)

Trying to learn here. No offense meant.

You're definitely not offending me (the thread starter). I'm wondering the same thing as you are. If "high and fast" produces the same results (especially with ribs) then I'm wasting my time cooking at 225-250 degrees and will have no problem making the temp hike to 300 degrees and over. I still have a lot to learn myself.

[Saiko]

To answer the last couple of posters, there are a lot of people who prefer a heavy smoke flavor, and you aren't going to get that at 325 degrees. That being said, there are also a lot of people who don't like much smoke flavor at all.
As far as tenderness, there are and were many purists (I used to be one of them) that consider anything over 250 degrees to not be true BBQ. It's only recently that a lot of people are discovering that high heat smokes are just as tender as low and slow.

High heat smokes are new for a lot of people. When this forum was started, I don't think any of us even knew they existed. I know I didn't. So this is new for a lot of us and we are still in a learning curve.

[KC_Bobby]

Originally Posted by jrb03

There is a difference between 220 low and 325 high. Im in the middle, 250-275. I cant tell any difference in the product if the backwoods is at 225 or 275, except 225 takes longer.

Same here. Always the same taste, texture and color.

[barbefunkoramaque]

Look at my sig below.

One major reason for low and slow is our gear, fuel and rub. I shutter at the sight of someone placing brown sugar on ribs before they smoke them... initally its because I know how nasty that will taste in my pit... which is solid logs and hot enough to burn that sugar....

but some doofus in Mississippi cooking it in a junk 55 gallon horizontal drum, after smoking party way and then being foiled til tender and re-slathering it with sweet sauce can send me into drooling over it.

A lot of methods are ways to get meat to do something it does using a different technique. Like in making Bark... High salt, high dry heat, makes a great bark.... mustard slathers, and rubs along with low moist heat try to emulate that.

Now I DO believe that low and slow has been overstressed to such an extent that in much the same way that pits lost favors to our ovens from 1905 to 1980, hot and fast could suffer the same fate...

So part of it also is enforced buy the media as well... Low and slow just sounds like it makes sense... like it would make good Q.