I don't even know what to think about this statement. Did someone tell you to put olive oil on your finished steak, and you did so, and then thought, "Well, I can't taste that. But this steak tastes way better. Did I even put the olive oil on? I'm not sure, but this steak tastes way better. I should tell other people to slather on the olive oil, just in case."

My point was that you don't taste olive oil, you taste the steak, but it adds a layer of richness that isn't there without it. Whereas if you have one covered in butter, you can taste the butter and the steak. But thanks for the backhanded jackass like comment without trying it.

1) rare steaks are generally way more tender than more heavily cooked steaks so you won't be doing lots of chewing.
2) rare steaks aren't cold in the middle...they aren't red hot, but they aren't cold..blue steaks are cold in the middle.

You flat out say that you add olive oil, you don't taste it, the steak will taste better, and you won't know why. If you're the star of a Christopher Nolan film, not knowing why the steak you just added olive oil to tastes better is ok. Otherwise, having no idea what happened, or not knowing why the steak tastes richer right after you added a ton of fat to it is Special-Olympics stupid.

EDIT: Hey, it's ok if you wanted to say, "Pour some olive oil on top of your cooked steak, because you won't taste olive oil, you'll taste the steak, but it adds a layer of richness that isn't there without it." You'd still be wrong, but that's a little different than, "Pour olive oil on your steak, you won't taste it but it'll taste better and you won't have any idea what happened!"

speaking of special olympics stupid, i didn't realize a tablespoon or less qualified as a ton, but what do i know. I really don't give a **** if you try it or not. Lots of people add butter to a finished steak. I gave an alternative that I think is better and gave my reason. Please let us all know when your show on the foodnetwork comes out.

A rare stake is cool in the middle. Rare, cool red center, medium rare, warm red center...at least that's what they taught me at the Outback. A medium-rare steak is certainly more tender than medium-well steak. And perhaps a rare steak is more tender than a mid rare, and a raw steak more tender than any cooked steak. But it is a lot harder to chew a piece of raw meat than a piece of cooked meat. It might be more tender -- certainly if you press into it it yields more, but it is chewier.

What's easier to tear in half with your hands, a raw steak or a medium well one?

blue/very rare is cool in the center (my fav), all red and warm is rare, slightly less red and warm is med rare typically

I see that wiki says you are correct. Makes sense for the Outback not to distinguish between rare and medium rare, smart of them imo. Reserve rare for "blue" steaks. Which is what I was thinking of. Anyway, I do think that a medium rare NY Strip is less chewy than a blue one.

ya, you bring out a blue rare to a normal person @ an outback, and you probably will end up bringing it back for a refire, most people ask for rare, but typically mean medium rare I would guess. I ask for mine to be walked through a warm room

Yeah they typically didn't cook the rare orders blue when I worked there, they just said they would so that the only people who ordered it rare would be warned that they could possibly get it like that. Sort of saying "hey don't order a steak rare unless you're OK with it bleeding all over the plate." Usually there were pretty indistinguishable from medium rare...I think a lot of people order steaks rare just to avoid getting a medium steak. I never had to take back a rare order because it was cooked medium rare.

Olive oil on a steak? Let's throw a match on a forest fire. Rare is an internal temperature range betwen 120 and 125. Blue is 100. Big difference.

Actually, Olive oil on a steak is a classic preparation seen in dishes such as the Bistecca alla Fiorentina, made typically from a porterhouse of the Chianina cow.

Seriously, there's way too much derision and ego in this thread from self touted experts. No need to put down somebody who makes a suggestion.

i still think you're overgeneralizing. there are many farmers/butchers involved in supplying meat who care deeply about their practices and they persist in areas where consumers care enough. These specialty places can give you beef that may be fed with some grain that is far superior to average grocery products and may fetch a price equal to or greater than grass fed and im not sure you can say objectively one is necessarily healthier for the animal/consumer or better than the other. the natural-way argument doesnt mean much when we may be able to provide a more optimal living, health and meat quality than their instinctual tendency. in general natures past success is a good rule-of-thumb so not a bad idea to not interfere too much.

though even humans have so much debate as to our optimal diet, and i dont think it can be easily settled saying which is best and healthiest and its just as hard for animals. anyways, we're not getting anywhere and i think we agree that the best and healthiest meat comes from suppliers who aim to keep their animals in the best physical health and are meticulously optimizing their processes. there are quality butchers i know of who supply their cattle with organic feed, that the cows are able to discover themselves, rather than be forcefed, that often includes some grains, and its some of the best meat available anywhere and i'd be surprised if it fared much worse in any study comparing to health benefits to strictly grass-fed beef (which doesnt tell us much about whether the feed is totally organic, whether they forage themselves, whether they are constantly moved to new areas [this is big in disease prevention among grass feeding] etc.).

So with regards to grass vs grain, here is the way I think of it.

I am a man who loves foie gras. Now compare foie gras to none force fed/fattened duck liver. I love none fattened duck liver and its better for both the duck and me but flavor wise, I love foie quite a bit more.

Same thing with grass fed beef. I like grass fed beef and every now and then its good as a flavor changeup. I like that grass fed beef is better for me and the steer. I enjoy the stronger beefiness, slight gameyness, and herbal notes that comes with grass fed beef. But I don't enjoy it more than I enjoy a nice piece of super marbled prime grain fed beef or a piece of Japanese Kobe.

So how come every guide advises getting it as hot as possible?

he was responding to a guy who doesnt like "burnt" steak, most call it a crust, and tasty, he wasnt making a blanket statement; re-read it in context

I don't know, if I turn my range up to ten and heat up my cast iron skillet for five minutes and cook a steak 2 minutes on each side my entire apartment fills up with smoke and the steak is charred on the outside. It's not supposed to be black, right? Putting the range on 8 gets it dark brown after 2.5 minutes on a side.

you don't need it on the highest setting. you are looking for hot enough to create a maillard reaction. The only downside is that with thinner steaks, sometimes by the time you get a crust, you might have cooked the inside a bit more than you would like.

So if you are looking for a steak closer to a black and blue, then have it as high as possible otherwise medium high is more than ok.

I think you need to re-read it in context, that guy was me.

Got some pics of my latest attempt. It was a real nice piece of Aberdeen Angus fillet, let it rest for 30 mins in the kitchen, sprinkled sea salt on both sides and rubbed in then put some fresh ground pepper on it. Served with asparagus, herb and olive oil potato wedges and a red pepper pesto humous (I really love humous with steak). It was absolutely amazing. Probably the best I've done at home so far. I seared it for approx 1.5 mins on each side, basted with a little butter then put it in the over at about 160 for 5 mins. The middle was nice and warm whilst being super soft, juicy and tender with a nice crispy outside. Beautiful.

i do this all the time. i wasnt sure whether or not he meant he let the meat thaw.

personally i buy huge untrimmed roasts, age them myself then trim and portion so everything gets frozen. Frozen meat (frozen under 2-3 months) that is properly dealt with need not have any noticeable quality disadvantage of fresher meat IMO.

That's what it's supposed to be like. It's supposed to be slightly burnt. Unless you mean like charred which I personally like but to each his own.

Also that steak looks goddamn beautiful. Well done sir. I suggest a pan sauce next.

Also, by the way, make sure you guys let your steak rest after cooking it. About half the time you spent cooking it is correct. It'll make sure that it stays really juicy and all the liquid inside doesn't end up on the plate, it'll stay in the meat.

And make sure that it rests on a hot plate. If you put it on a room temp plate it will be lukewarm after 5 minutes.

birchinio,

where did you buy it and how much was it?

160 seems low but it looks really good.

Bought it from tescos which is a UK supermarket, its the best fillet they do though it's really good quality. He cut that for me behind the counter and it came to £6.31 which i guess is kinda dear but worth it.

I think it was 160 maybe slighty more/less. Was absolutely perfect though juicy as hell and didn't have that cold raw meat texture in the middle.