Psst... We're working on the next generation of Chowhound! View >
HOME > Chowhound > Home Cooking >
Oct 12, 2010 05:34 AM

slow cooking "prime" cuts (sirloin, chops etc)?

Maybe my terminology is wrong here... But we often hear how tough/muscular cuts of meat (shoulders, legs etc) need slow cooking. The connective tissues break down this way. But does anybody know if non-tough cuts of meat (pork chops, sirloin, etc) do alright slow cooked? Clearly there isn't as much tough connective tissue (or skin), and I wonder if this results in little flavour. What's the texture like when "searable" cuts are slow-cooked? I'd especially love to hear not only whether it's tasty or bad, but why (from a food science perspective).
Thanks a lot!

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. From experience, I know that a slow-cooked (crock-pot), pork tenderloin comes out insanely dry.

    2 Replies
    1. re: blynk

      either ridiculously dry, or a crock-pot full of mush -- just overcooked, too-soft nothing.

      There's not much taste or silky texture to it, either (other than from any veggies or aromatics you might have added), because there's no collagen and connective tissue to speak of to melt and create that wonderful slow-cooked silky taste and texture that we love in long-cooked dishes (whether on the stove, in a crockpot, or in a closed vessel in an oven) once you melt away the fat (even if it's well-marbled, it will eventually all render) and break down what little connective tissue is there, all you have left is defatted protein fibres...and there's not much happy about that, texture or taste-wise.

      (plus it would be criminal to spend premium money on premium cuts just to destroy them in a braise.)

    2. Dry and flavorless would be an understatement.