Low and slow roast beef?

Discussion in 'Beef' started by cueinco, Feb 20, 2015.

  1. cueinco

    cueinco Smoke Blower

    We're supposed to get a bunch of snow this weekend. Sunday seems like a good day to do a traditional roast beef dinner. You know, roast beef, gravy made from neck bones, mashed taters, peas, and green beans. 

    I picked up a nice eye round and I'm planning on seasoning it with spog and then let it rest for 24 hours in the fridge. My question is temperature. Rather than do it in the oven at 350, I was thinking about 325. But if low and slow is the way to go, why not 300 or even 275? An eye round doesn't have much, if any, collagen or connective tissue and I was wondering about the benefits of low and slow. 

    In doing some research, America's Test Kitchen in their slow-roasted beef recipe says:

    "Keeping the meat's internal temperature below 122 degrees as long as possible allowed the meat's enzymes to act as natural tenderizers, breaking down its tough connective tissue (this action stops at 122 degrees). Since most ovens don't heat below 200 degrees, we needed to devise a special method to lengthen this tenderizing period. We roasted the meat at 225 degrees (after searing it to give the meat a crusty exterior) and shut off the oven when the roast reached 115 degrees. The meat stayed below 122 degrees an extra 30 minutes, allowing the enzymes to continue their work before the temperature reached 130 degrees for medium-rare. Final step: seasoning. Salting the meat a full 24 hours before roasting made it even more tender and seasoned the roast throughout."
    (Read more:  http://www.afeastfortheeyes.net/2011/01/slow-roasted-beef-cooks-illustrated.html#ixzz3SJXXx3K6  
    Under Creative Commons License: Attribution  )

    I'm guessing that I'll pull the roast at 128 to rest it. At such a low temperature, I'm guessing that the carry over cooking won't be that much. 

    Anyway, do you folks believe the approach? I'm assuming that ATK has some science behind "the enzymes act up to 122 degrees" but I hadn't heard that before. Just wondering if other folks do their roasts this way? 

    Thanks for your thoughts and I'll post some pics when I get the beast going. 
  2. timberjet

    timberjet Master of the Pit

    I would sear or reverse sear. Either way you are on the right track. Yes, low and slow is good mostly just for more smoke time. If it is a good piece of meat to begin with it will be nice sliced thin across the grain anyway you do it. I like to do a reverse sear myself.http://www.smokingmeatforums.com/t/130852/top-round-steaks-reverse-sear-with-q-view Now, this is if you were to cut it up into 2 inch steaks but would work equally as well whole, just might take a little longer. I like to steak it up in case someone likes it a little less rare than I. This is exactly how I do it.
  3. mdboatbum

    mdboatbum Master of the Pit OTBS Member

    There was a time when I would have sworn up and down that low and slow was not necessary for anything you're not taking to pulling temps. I've since been shown the error of my ways. In addition to the benefits already stated your meat will be the temperature you want it all the way through. No more rare center and well done outer edges. If the enzyme argument holds true, it might make that eye round almost chewable. That cut can be brutal. I'd still slice it under 1/4". Good luck!

Share This Page