Re: Low & Slow??...
PatioDaddio;p="14319 Wrote:Nice post, Dr. Mike. I understand the chemistry, but the success of hot & fast cooking leaves me baffled.
Keep it coming, brother!
Patience, my brother... Patience... :wink:
I anticipated a comment along your line of thought... And I am awaiting some feedback from a couple of a meat science professors at a couple of major universities down in Texas to get their take as to how/why "hot & fast" may also be a viable option when it comes to Que... There are definitely some great cooks out there doing well with "hot & fast" these days... But there are definitely those doing well with "low and slow", too...
My article was meant to be a "baseline" for the readers... A place we can go from... "Low & slow" is without a doubt the more "traditional" and time-tested method for cooking Que... And it definitely works...
But I am going to also examine "hot & fast" for the readers as well... I am just awaiting some insight/information from some folks who hopefully are a whole lot smarter than me in this area... Being the knot-head that I am, I am afraid all that I have to offer at this time is my own casual observations on the subject...
At the same time, does that mean that a "scientific" answer will resolve the issue of "low & slow" versus "hot & fast"? I doubt it... Like the "stick burner vs pellet pooper" argument, I have a feeling that smokeheads are still going to line up on one side of the line or the other in this matter as well :shock: :lol:
|03-02-2009 11:56 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)