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

[jrb03]

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/showthread.php?t=57130&highlight=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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[swibirun]

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.

Are you knocking me???? :biggrin::mrgreen:

I will qualify my statement that I've tried it both ways. While I intentionally tried the ribs high and fast, the times that I tried a butt and a brisket that way, both were accidental. I had a thermometer lose calibration in each case and it was cooking 30-40 degrees hotter than the 250f dome temp I was attempting. So I'll admit I haven't tried the high and fast brisket method as written in another post. But I do definitely prefer my ribs cooked at 250f dome temp on my Egg.

 

[JD McGee]

I'm kinda in the middle as well...I'm very happy with the high heat brisket method...I smoke my butts @ 225-250 because it's all I know for now...I smoke my ribs @ 250-275...and I do my chicken @ 300-325. I'd like to learn more about the high heat pork butt method though...

Hey Funk...what does "Till Weep" mean when doin' your ribs?

 

[barbefunkoramaque]

I'm kinda in the middle as well...I'm very happy with the high heat brisket method...I smoke my butts @ 225-250 because it's all I know for now...I smoke my ribs @ 250-275...and I do my chicken @ 300-325. I'd like to learn more about the high heat pork butt method though...

Hey Funk...what does "Till Weep" mean when doin' your ribs?

Leave the membrane on... smoke with clean hot 325 degree house temp, hold it there, bone up until they begin to weep... all of it... not just spots... once they begin to weep close your doors to the fire, close your doors or vents to your outlets and let them sit in the pit for at least 30 - 50 minutes then test by twisting the smallest rib at the end... if it twists inside the meat and the meat bends well then they are ready and can be parked or eaten right there.

for the "bend" see this video... they are about to be ready.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01EAArFMVRY

at about 16 seconds you see me try and bend the right side rib... one side is stubborn... you will see me flip it to the heat source to speed it up.

Note the way the large side of the middle rack of ribs bends nicely but the large part of the right rack does not... the smaller area does...

watch ur head.

the ribs go from dry and dusty to gleaming when they drip and weep.

 

[Bacon]

You answered your question in your own question.

BBQ and Grilling are two different things.

BBQ is Low$Slow/Fast&Hot """Indirect""... Griling is DIRECT HEAT under thy meat/veg.

 

[ricksegers]

I think it all comes down to this...Cook it the way you like it and respect the other guy and his way of doing it.

 

[Midnight Smoke]

Got to jump in, If cooking high and fast works out for you then go with it. I look at it like this, if Slo-n-Low was not the proper way to achieve delicious, tender, smoked meat then this would have been determined decades ago. JMHO :icon_shy:icon_shy

 

[Bevo]

Got to jump in, If cooking high and fast works out for you then go with it. I look at it like this, if Slo-n-Low was not the proper way to achieve delicious, tender, smoked meat then this would have been determined decades ago. JMHO :icon_shy:icon_shy

I am of this opinion as well!! I have done both methods, I think I am sticking with low and slow. Also someone mentioned more Beer time...just another plus for low and slow!

 

[barbefunkoramaque]

if Slo-n-Low was not the proper way to achieve delicious, tender, smoked meat then this would have been determined decades ago. JMHO :icon_shy:icon_shy

So by your own logic...then... low and slow is NOT the proper way because hot and fast was used before the 1905 shift. Therefore... hot and fast (as well as a pre-simmer of all meats before roasting over the fire) is the proper way... and it was determined to be because its an older method.

As much as I'd like it to be... that's not right... both ways are correct.

Remember the question was "Is cooking low and slow (solely) a myth?" as far as it is the only way to create good Q.

Therefore the proper answer is, YES. Not, "I prefer Low and slow."

A vote would be senseless as well because there are barely enough people that make decent Q low and slow due to improper fire maintenance, pore clogging powders and marinades, and temperature probe paranoia so it will be a while before these people have the skills to do it hot and fast and on the edge. Low and slow is more forgiving as well.

 

[barbefunkoramaque]

I am of this opinion as well!! I have done both methods, I think I am sticking with low and slow. Also someone mentioned more Beer time...just another plus for low and slow!

\

Please.. never change your avatar... and I drink Jack, not beer....sooooooo

 

[Bamabuzzard]

\

Please.. never change your avatar... and I drink Jack, not beer....sooooooo

HERE HERE!!!! I'll drink to that. :twisted: