HOME > Chowhound > General Topics >

top round vs. chuck for stew

brycol1 Dec 14, 2008 11:44 AM

I am making a texas chili and am finding that the top round is a little dry even from stewing for 2.5 hours now. does any one have any input on which stew meat they like better for a dish like this?

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. c oliver RE: brycol1 Dec 14, 2008 12:08 PM

    IMO, top round is just too lean for stewing. Chuck roast is my choice; plenty of fat.

    1. alanbarnes RE: brycol1 Dec 14, 2008 12:14 PM

      Chuck has more connective tissue, which breaks down into gelatin and gives an unctuous mouthfeel. You can stew top round forever, and it will eventually fall apart and melt into the other ingredients, but it's never going to bring that lip-smacking texture to the party.

      1. c
        cstr RE: brycol1 Dec 14, 2008 01:18 PM

        I always use a bonless chuck roast that I cube up for either chili or stew. I find chuck has more flavor and there's enough connective tissue that will breakdown during the cooking process making the meat very tender.

        1. a
          anni RE: brycol1 Dec 14, 2008 01:33 PM

          Definitely chuck roast. :)

          1. m
            MEH RE: brycol1 Dec 14, 2008 01:40 PM

            Yep. Another vote for chuck roast for stew!


            1. jfood RE: brycol1 Dec 14, 2008 07:44 PM

              another vote for chuck

              1. Aromatherapy RE: brycol1 Dec 15, 2008 12:51 PM

                Chuck. (Also I like shank for stew.) Is top round good for *Anything*???

                1 Reply
                1. re: Aromatherapy
                  DockPotato RE: Aromatherapy Dec 16, 2008 12:23 PM

                  Rouladen, Swiss steak, anything requiring thin strips like stir fry or stroganoff.

                2. k
                  KevinB RE: brycol1 Dec 15, 2008 03:40 PM

                  Nothing against chuck, but I've always preferred blade for stews, chilis, etc.

                  1 Reply
                  1. re: KevinB
                    c oliver RE: KevinB Dec 15, 2008 04:22 PM

                    Do you think there's a substantive difference? I'm open to other cuts.

                  2. rednyellow RE: brycol1 Dec 15, 2008 06:13 PM

                    Def. Chuck, but either way, dont cook too hot. low and slow.

                    2 Replies
                    1. re: rednyellow
                      LindaWhit RE: rednyellow Dec 15, 2008 06:20 PM

                      Agreed on the chuck, as well as the low and slow.

                      1. re: LindaWhit
                        c oliver RE: LindaWhit Dec 15, 2008 06:32 PM

                        Yeah, I'd been using my slow cooker on high and the meat got done quicker but much drier and less flavor. Now slow for 7-8 hours and it's perfect.

                    Show Hidden Posts