Hacker News Reader

Comment by contravariant | Hacker News Reader

Myth #3 (Bone-in steak has more flavor than boneless) seems a bit of a strawman, the version they disprove is "the bone somehow imparts flavour onto the meat", but they then go on to say that:

> I personally find the tiny bits of connective tissue-rich meat, fat, and gristle stuck to the bone to be the tastiest part of the steak

So yeah, unless you can get the bone out perfectly you'll get more flavoursome meat if you leave it in.

Also it's not entirely insane to believe bones impart flavour, since marrow is incredibly flavoursome, though you probably won't be able to cook bones enough to get the marrow out.

View on HN

There's not much marrow to recover from a rib bone, which is why they don't sell rib bones as marrow bones.

Fair, but given their incredulous "bones have more flavor than meat?" I figured it was worth pointing out that bones do in fact have flavour.

Also I think some steaks (like T-bone) do have some amount of marrow, their myth doesn't specify rib steaks.

The marrow you're getting out of a marrow bone (ie: the marrow you're getting when you order a dish at a restaurant that has "bone marrow" in it, or features marrow) is also not the same kind of marrow as is in the thin/small bones you're getting in a steak. No, I don't think marrow is making bone-in steak taste better.

(Marrow, though, would make a steak taste better! Order a marrow bone, cook the marrow, and then baste your steak with it when you sear it.)

I'm willing to accept that marrow won't have much of an effect on cooking a steak, simply because:

1) The marrow isn't touching the actual meat

2) Bone marrow and steak have very different preparations

Claiming bones don't have any flavour is a silly overcorrection though.

They don't impart any flavor to a steak, is the claim. Not "bones don't have any flavor".

> Also it's not entirely insane to believe bones impart flavour

Brown stock is made from roasted bones, among other things, so I too feel somewhat skeptical about the claim that bones cannot import at least some sort of flavor.

He tested this, for whatever it's worth to you: bone in, bone off, and bone detached and re-attached with a foil shield between the bone and the meat. Indistinguishable.

I understand that, and fully share his view that "tiny bits of connective tissue-rich meat, fat, and gristle stuck to the bone to be the tastiest part of the steak".

I can also easily admit that it's possible that the "bone-in steak has more flavor" argument might actually just be a consequence of the above: people leaving the bone on may mistake the flavors of said meat and fat for flavor imparted by the bone, rather than being innate.

However, I'm trying to weigh the one source here calling this a myth against plenty of reputable Chefs who subscribe to this myth - not just with steak, but also with poultry. It's quite possible that these Chefs are fooling themselves (they frequently do; I've seen enough contradictions), but it nevertheless is an extraordinary claim.

With brown stock, you're eating bits of the bone. With a bone in steak, you're eating bits of meat that have been near the bone.

It's not impossible that it would have an impact, but there's no obvious mechanism either. (And as the author points out, there's no particular reason why, even if flavour transfer was happening, it'd go the direction you want either.)

Fair enough regarding the first sentence, but why would the direction be one-way anyway? Lots of interactions go both ways.

Yeah, both directions at the same time, the flavors mix up, trading some meat for bone, that seems clear enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com