Hacker News Reader

Comment by DoesntMatter22 | Hacker News Reader

Hulk Hogan told the story of how this was brought to him first to endorse but she insisted it was stupid and that instead he endorse the Hulk Hogan Thunder Mixer, a handheld blender.

He rolled his eye the whole time he told the story.

View on HN

Hulk Hogan is also a compulsive liar, so I don't believe this story.

To the downvoters: Hogan is a notorious liar and definitely lied about the grill story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AukVofRrSP8

If you have some time to kill, this is a fun video to watch. Otherwise, you can just google his long list of lies.

Even if it's true, it's so disgraceful of him telling the story in a way that he throws his spouse under the bus for what was really his decision to make. I don't know why I'd expect grace from Hulk Hogan though.

Who's the 'she' in this story?

Shehulk

Maybe his talent agent?

Sorry, his wife. I missed a word or two there lol

I mean... I consider myself a versatile home cook, and I've owned and used more products similar to the Thunder Mixer than products similar to the George Foreman grill. Sometimes it's a mystery what people buy. Why would you buy a separate appliance rather than a ridged grill pan for your stove top?

Because it knocks out the fat, obviously

Doesn't it cook steaks on both sides at once?

yes, and it also drains all the juice out through little grooves. The very concept is completely mental. No one should abuse a piece of meat that way.

Isn't it equivalent to an actual grill in that regard? I haven't heard anyone say that a grill is abusing meat.

I always sear meat on a flat top first anyway, but the advantage with an actual grill is that it has flames which help seal the outside of the meat quickly. Much more so than the heat radiating from the Foreman Grill grooves. Without a quick sear, you end up with a rubbery and dry piece of meat.

The foreman grill was not meant for seasoned steak cookers, it was typically for college kids or first time apartment dwellers. It had it's time and place and it was obviously not meant for you in this current time and place.

Meats don't really seal unless you're literally tarring them with char, and besides, juices leak from the side just fine. You really want to steam off the water content of a steak to get a better texture and fewer grease-runs. The entire meme about searing is literally just a decently crunchy texture. Flip steaks as much as you want.

The high "sear" temperature mostly implies a faster (and easy-to-follow) cook-time, but it still requires salting the steak to drain as much moisture as possible. It's certainly the smarter texhniwue, but not because it seals juices in.

(Also, "searing" a steak does in fact slow the rate of water loss, so it is easier to control cook-quality and easier to cook whilst distracted. But this undermines my main point that water content actually ruins the steak, and that you can get the same texture and taste with a different technique.)

First of all, I'm talking about searing on a flat top. Which doesn't char. And it does keep in the moisture. Especially if you've got fat on the side of the meat. But the best reason to do this is not to hold in the water, but to get a consistently even temperature in the final steak.

It is not a fast process. The steak needs to be rested at room temperature for an hour. Then seared 2 minutes each side, maximum heat, seasoning before you turn it down. Taken off the flat top or cast iron pan, which you deglaze, and pour over the steak. Rested another 30 minutes. Return to a cast iron pan and put in the oven at 450F for 8 minutes for a 1" steak rare, plus 2-3 minutes to medium rare. (11 minutes for a 1" ribeye to MR).

What happens is that the outside is seasoned brown, well cooked and most of the juice stays in, but the interior fat melts down and you end up cutting through a piece of meat that is exactly the same color and temperature from the inside to the very edge of the outside.

If you do want to cook on a grill, obviously don't grease-stain it by flipping it a lot or trying to sear it there. Put your cast iron pan on the grill, sear it in that, and then finish it on the grates for flavor and char.

I'm just pointing out you can get the same food with a quarter (at most) of the prep time and twice the flipping if you approach it experimentally at the same heat. Very much including basting. If you think steakhouses let steaks sit out before cooking them you're nuts—they might get nuked for five seconds for approximately the same effect. Letting them sit is just a convenience while prepping the rest of dinner.

Also, tenderizing the meat is about 10x as effective as letting it rest at room temperature. Not only does it warm the meat much faster, it reduces cook time, draws moisture out, and improves the crust. A minute of beating the shit out of the steak can trivially improve on an hour of sitting out (as if we have the time most days!). The grid-slice pattern is also very effective, even if it looks trashy. It's trashy because it's cheap and it works so well any cheap steakhouse will do it to obscure the shitty produce. Just make sure to do the tenderizing before you apply the salt.

Of course if you enjoy cooking, don't let my advice ruin it. Food is a lot more enjoyable if you feel satisfied eating it. Not everyone needs to optimize for cook-time.

Steaks being cooked naturally drain juice. The entire concept of searing a steak "sealing" the juices in implies a cooking paradigm that simply doesn't hold up to experimentation. You want to cook off water mass from a good steak—it's better flavor, better texture, and you're left with far less grease in your soup-catcher.

If you cook enough steaks, it's quite hard to get a dry one, and you can get excellent texture and taste despite draining the "juice" (which is like 80% of why you salt the steak to begin with—moisture = less even and harder to control cooking which results in a chewier crust).

We had one on a yacht I crewed that did ecotour sorta sails. When we'd catch a small tuna, after the trips I'd butterfly it and George Foreman it. No added oil just right on the Teflon cooking surface and texture and taste would come out sorta like fried chicken. It was great

I think the issue is that the weight of the lid and top grill pressing down on the steak squeezes a lot more juice out than if you grilled the steak on regular grill that heats from below.

You usually press down on it or use a weight with a regular grill. You want a crust from a Maillard reaction on the outer surfaces, with a less-cooked interior.

I do not do that. I use the reverse sear technique popularized by Kenji Lopez-Alt. This involves heating the steak to near-doneness over indirect heat, followed by an intense sear over direct heat. A brief rest period in between allows an even better sear, as the surface has a bit of time to dry out and the internal temperature to drop a bit, enabling more time over high heat.

A ridged grill pan like OP suggested does the same, or to the extent it collects underneath it steams part of your steak, or if it fills to the point it is touching the steak again it partly boils it for some of the cook time. The Foreman grill sears it more like a real open grill by letting the water drain away instead of having to boil off for part of the cooking. A regular flat pan does some of this too since the water is pushed out to the sides faster and boils off away from the steak letting it sear better.

I used to only use one side of the grille and usually not close it for most things where I cared about retaining the moisture

I asked my ex once why she owned a bullet blender instead of a normal blender, and her response was "not for drugs, I just saw the infomercial"

Normal blenders have substantially more cleanup work involved.

But they also don't break as often. And can hold a larger capacity. And don't spill. Admittedly, the thought of cleanup has put me off the occasional late night margarita...

If you have a powerful enough blender like a Blendtec or Vitamix you can just put soap and water in it and run the blender itself to clean it.

Yep. I paid something like $650 for a Vitablend at a restaurant supply store about 20 years ago. That's the commercial version of a Vitamix. Thing is a tank, and has blended many many gallons of soups, smoothies, grain into flour, etc. over the years. Cleanup is hot water and a couple squirts of dishwasher liquid and run it on high a few seconds. Had to replace the jar a few years ago, but the base will outlive me.

The other huge advantage: you can get parts for decades. With good kitchen gear you want to buy it once for life. Need a new cap, or jug, for a 2001 model? No big deal. You dont get that with the stuff from Target. (It is also not correlated to price, eg my zojirushi rice cooker offers the same capability but was way cheaper than the fancy korean rice cookers in the store.)

Past the edit time, but I had the name wrong. It's a Vita-Prep 3, not Vitablend, that's the commercial model I bought.

The downside is they’re louder than a prop plane doing a run up.

There are some with sound insulation covers.

But the blendtec is one of my best purchases ever - especially in “I never have to think about this again”.

I have both a cast iron grill pan and a Forman. I use the Forman frequently because it heats up fast, cleans easy, and reliably cooks both sides at once…without oil, butter etc.

The grill pan has none of those attributes and can’t press a grilled cheese.

Yes it takes up counter space and is ultimately going to the landfill. I wish that were otherwise, but for me, they aren’t deal breakers.

Some friends of mine back then had a reason I think may have been pretty common: they lived an apartment building that didn't allow combustion grills on the balconies. And coincidentally this sort of rental property is exactly the type to have an absolutely fake junk "extractor" for handling smoke in the kitchen. So they could put the Foreman on the patio and do an okish job with some steaks or burgers without smoking up the whole place.

This was exactly my reason when I lived in a tiny apartment in Boston having no exhaust or fan in the kitchen itself. Put the Foreman Grill by a window with some burgers cooking, job done.

There's warm weekends in Boston when strolling along one can look into the alleys and see a dozen Foremen Grills in action on the fire escapes. Fond memories of those days.

Apartment dweller here who misses his Weber and Blackstone.

A regular pan on a hot plate or portable induction hob makes a far, far better steak than a Foreman.

I'd be a crime to put a decent steak on one of those things.

People were cooking burgers and chicken on these things, no steak.

Also, George Foreman grills were popular in the late 90s/early 2000s, before induction hobs were really much of a thing.

Maybe precisely because the guy endorsing one product is much more relatable than the guy endorsing the other.

Nothing against Hulk Hogan, he is certainly one of a kind, but when it comes to my food I'd take advice from a down to earth type like Foreman a thousand times over that from a persona as detached from real life as Hogan's.

Hulk Hogan also destroyed gawker because he was too cowardish to admit he's a sex freak. Obviously Peter Thiel was involved because he's too cowardish to admit he's gay, but the takeaway is that our society is run by toddlers who never learned to regulate their emotions (let alone manage the wealth a capitalist society allegedly demands. Eg people outside of Buffet demanding to be taxed more and Chuck Feeney making the gates foundation look like money-grubbing assholes).

It's interesting that we ended up with Hogan, Ventura, and Trump as figures in our politics. I feel like the last time a republic got to that point, there was a lot of lead in the water. I guess now it's mostly plastic in the brain.

Yea it turns out when you divorce politics from anything that matters it just becomes reality tv. Americans are too moronic to wield the power they claim today so it's hard to feel anything negative about this.

I'm not sure it's fair to mock the public figures, because it's not like the guys in between them were anything particularly remarkable either. Democracy doesn't select skilled leaders, it selects charismatic ones with 'flexible moral values' of the sort that are useful for gaining sufficient backers. It's fairly predictable that democracies with relatively wide suffrage would trend towards electing pop figures.

This also is exactly democracy was mostly felt to be an unsustainable system by the ancient philosophers. And in reading Plato's assessment of democracy, and its cycles, in "The Republic", he sounds like much more like a prophet than a philosopher.

Eh, we had Reagan and Schwarzenegger and others before too

They put in some effort to not behave like clowns after getting elected, though

Schwarzenegger, maybe, but Reagan? The man was a horror show as president.

Not sure, I’m a bit too young but the standards seem to have been much higher back in those days. Reagan’s [public] behavior would still be pretty tame nowadays.

Of course broadcasting your deranged random thoughts to the whole world in the middle of the night wasn’t really and option and listening to Nixon’s tapes the way they behaved in private was well.. quite something. I don’t even believe that Nixon was especially egregious either he just decided to record everything anyone said in his office due to whatever reasons.

And then you had career politicians like Johnson who might have been even more vulgar than Trump..

> Not sure, I’m a bit too young

I, sadly, am not and he was a horror show.

> but the standards seem to have been much higher back in those days.

He was a service-cutting, union-busting, lunatic military hawk guided by Nancy's astrologer. Sure, he's not as overtly and in-your-face as bad as Trump (who could be?) but that doesn't preclude him being a horror show in and of himself.

Don't forget Schwarzenegger too, but both he and Ventura are objectively less evil than Thiel.

Are we forgetting the original one, Ronald Reagan? Guy was a literal middling actor, whose only claim to fame was snitching on Communist sympathizers in Hollywood when it was cool.

I'm pretty sure all of them, as well as the most reliable voter age bracket, all grew up with lead in the gasoline still.

This theory has held up poorly to other theories, such as the federal legalization of abortion. Positing a single cause, even a single dominating cause, is an incredibly, incredibly hard claim to demonstrate. I do believe that unleading gasoline had widespread social impacts, but this narrative is just lazy reduction with no benefit.

Personally, I think the easiest theory is simply economic prosperity. Most American problems these days can be described in terms of relationship to wealth. changes in education take decades to reflect in aggregate effectiveness. If nothing changes, I think we'll be facing a similarly-violent time period for likely the rest of our lives, even if we aren't there yet.

Gawker destroyed Gawker, they acted like toddlers themselves and lost in a way that seemed like they were trying to.

Gawker still acted more mature in terms of the defamatory content than any given social network. This is as clear a case of revenge-murder as you can find. I just want to know who convinced Hulk Hogan anyone cares about him who doesn't already love him. As far as I know he's still the mustache guy of unknown import who was in that funny nanny movie in the nineties I saw at age four. who cares if he swings?

This was obviously about a man's insecurity leveraging the courts to destroy a publicly-valuable business beyond any reasonable conception of justice. Somehow the new york times was never held to the same standard when they published blatant lies and enabled the invasion of iraq and a million murdered.

>> publicly-valuable business

“Valuable” is doing a lot of work here. This is a tabloid you’re talking about. This is not an institution like NYT or WaPo.

Gawker was a far more valuable institution than both of the above. I'm not sure how you could claim otherwise: both papers just regurgitate ap headlines with misanthropic assholes managing the editing. Gawker at least managed to break news and contribute to discourse beyond the ivy-league toadies that contribute nothing substantial beyond dogmatic reverwnce for broken institutions that were wildly out of date a hundred years ago.

Centrist idiots blathering about institutional integrity and decorum destroyed this country. I refuse to let them gain power again. I far prefer gossip rags to imperial stooges: at least they're honest about their dishonesty. They also never stooped to the level of the new york times endorsing an obviously illegal invasion.

Granted, both are equally willing to cater towards the american demand for blood rather than justice. But at least I can blame the poeple actually at the capitol for january sixth. Who the hell can I blame for the mass-complacency and dogmatism of college-educated liberals aside from the very same ignorant mass? Until a better scapegoat arrives, the editorial boards of ivy-league-catering newspapers will have to do.

Why do people not read manufacturing consent? It's the only text american adults should be reading. Everything else doesn't matter.

It was more than just Gawker, it was a whole collection of blogs that I’d say were indeed ‘valuable’. The whole story is too much to convey in a post here, but Wikipedia has good (or, at least, comprehensive) articles about it.*

I’m what TwoPhonesOneKid calls a ‘centrist idiot’ in their peer comment (hey, look, I’m treating them with decorum!), and I don’t think it was more valuable than the NYT, but Gawker Media was a blog staple with a wide reach, and those blogs did real journalism in a wide range of fields in addition to click bait. Some of them arguably recovered under new ownership, but many did not.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker

Here is a very brief excerpt from a lot of shocking testimony from Gawker's editor; it was Gawker's own self-destructive behavior that destroyed them. Without testimony like this they would still be operating:

> “Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” asked the lawyer, Douglas E. Mirell.

> “If they were a child,” Mr. Daulerio replied.

> “Under what age?” the lawyer pressed.

> “Four.”

https://archive.is/2016.03.10-033848/http://www.nytimes.com/...

I think the multiple N-bombs in the tape were the much bigger problem.

Weird attribution of morality when buffet gave $40B to the gates foundation. Also, aren't we all toddlers who never learned to regulate their emotions? You and me just cause less hubris because we don't have as much power and the time to convince ourselves we deserve it.

Gawker destroyed itself because they let a reckless drug addict make editorial decisions while high and drunk which ended in the demise of the company. Fortunately that editor has recovered and has a neat blog/newsletter that focuses on substance abuse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com