Is this one of those old canards that happily gets passed around on food packaging and in cookbooks, yet means nothing from a scientific standpoint?
I fail to see how some convenience food item removed from a heat source will improve by standing around for a few minutes.
A piece of meat or a fowl removed from the oven, yes, but a TV dinner from the microwave? Macaroni & cheese? Brussels sprouts? A frozen pizza?
I think these food scientists and cookbook authors are just repeating what they've read somewhere else and want to look cool and also want to look like they know what they're talking about.
Why don't you put your head in the oven and let it rest for three minutes?
I always like it when they add a final instruction.
4. Serve and enjoy.
Thanks. I was going to serve and eat in utter despair.
A lot of convenience foods contain sauces that will thicken when left to stand for a couple of minutes, also if something has been microwaved you should let it sit to allow the lava-like middle to settle.
Failure to understand the reason doesn't mean the reason doesn't exist...
It does help the food to rest a few minutes before serving. I usually get the linens, plates, and flatware set during that space in time.
For the microwave foods, the purpose is to reduce steam/pressure/heat so idiots don't get burned by trying to open, or eat, a product too quickly.
For meats, as stated, there is a clear reason to let them rest.
Some things continue to cook even after brought out of the oven/microwave. Once the oven turns off it isn't like "Bam" things quit cooking. The temperature inside the food is still high, it still cooks.
Some foods like hot pockets are designed to cook for three minutes, so you microwave it for two and let it sit for one, and viola, it's cooked for three minutes.
I think some of the posters so far are mindless, unquestioning sheep.
Making up some reason in your own mind as to why the instruction is included is not critical thinking.
The food company or the cookbook writer is not always correct.
It really does make a difference to let meat or poultry rest. If you carve to serve immediately after removing from the oven, you lose a lot of juices.
Have you actually stuck a temperature probe in your food, r6, to confirm this is true?
No, you're just making an assumption in your mind.
R3 is correct. Microwaved chemical-laden sauces will thicken and the dish needs time to cool down so that special people like OP won't burn themselves.
It is added at the request of lawyers, not chefs.
If they tell you to let it rest (cool), you can't sue them if you burn the roof of your mouth.
OP ignores the admonishment to let it rest, r10.
Actually, anyone who has real experience with cooking and (especially) baking knows that food keeps cooking after it is removed from the oven. You often use an ice bath with blanched vegetables to halt the process. It's strange that you are accusing others of mindless, sheeplike behavior r7/r9 when it is you who is brazenly proclaiming your ignorance.
[quote]It is added at the request of lawyers, not chefs.
This is correct. It is the same reason that instructions for a new steam iron include a warning not to iron clothing while you wear it.
When blanching fresh vegetables, yes, you simple tool.
I'm talking about buttered brussels sprouts in lemon sauce, you idiot boob.
Stop repeating what you think you know and passing it off as fact.
"Lather, rinse, repeat"
Don't these instructions get you into an infinite loop if followed exactly?
R15 Sounds like PPSM with that crazy combination of happy homemaker and seething anger.
Some sauces need to sit to thicken, OP.
Is that really such a difficult concept?
[quote]No, you're just making an assumption in your mind.
Better than making one in your ass, OP, which is where yours clearly come from.
Some microwaves don't cook evenly, so the rest allows the heat to disperse more evenly. It's not that hard of a concept.
Cutting a pizza straight from the oven makes a mess. Let it settle/firm up for a few minutes, then cut. Restaurants do this.
Repeat, repeat, repeat. That's all you "recipe slaves" are doing here - just repeating what you think you know.
Show me proof, Alton Brown-style.
Not for meat, not fresh vegetables, not tricky sauces slathered over fine food -- I stipulate these foods do need a rest.
I am talking everyday, run-of-the-mill microwave convenience foods.
Prove to me the damage from from ignoring the admonition to "let rest."
It has nothing to do with cooking evenly or allowing flavors to enhance, OP. It's all about liability.
They don't want hungry Joe Schmoe to take the Swanson chicken dinner out of the microwave after it's been heated for 3:00 and jam the extremely hot food is his mouth right away. The package itself -- like microwave popcorn -- will burn your hand when the steam is released.
It's not about enhancing taste. It's them trying to avoid being sued from hasty eaters who burn their hands or tongue.
You shouldn't use a microwave for anything besides defrosting. Prepared meals are horrible and a microwave,ruins texture and nutrition at high temps.
I shouldn't even answer this but this is perfectly simple. Microwave food says to let it stand for a minute or two so you don't burn your tongue. It's really no more complicated than that. Cooked meat is different.. On Top Chef (!) they let meat rest for a minute so what, the flavors settle? I don't know..
[quote]On Top Chef (!) they let meat rest for a minute so what, the flavors settle? I don't know..
No. So that the juice inside the meat stays inside when you cut it. If you cut the meat when it's fresh off the grill, you will lose the meaty juice that keeps the steak tender and moist. That's the reason.
[quote]I usually get the linens, plates, and flatware set during that space in time.
You're way too good for microwaved foods, R4 -- they don't deserve lovely settings such as yours.
Microwaved foods need to rest because their molecules are still wildly active and volatile. Obviously they can burn you but also they continue to generate heat although it reduces very quickly. Microwave cook times are designed to take into account the additional time the food cooks even after the microwaving is finished. Microwaves also don't always heat things evenly, by letting the food sit the heat disperses itself naturally through simple scientific principle of heat transfer. And yes, pre-packaged, additive-laden foods are designed to thicken after resting. The food is designed by engineers not chefs.
Processed foods contain chemical preservatives (surprise!) and need to rest in the open so that these chemicals may off-gas before being consumed.
I learned this from a former bf, who had worked for several years as a food inspector in the midwest.
(Oh, and you don't want to know what goes into SPAM.)
This thread should be an ample demonstration that sometimes it really is best to "let it rest."
"Microwaved foods need to rest because their molecules are still wildly active and volatile."
And where did you find this gem, r28?!
OP just use your oven. I do not even own a microwave.
I might buy the liability angle, however this is the country that awarded damages to the McDonalds Drive-Thru coffee burn-ee.
People can and do sue for frivolous reasons everyday.
No amount of "let the dish stand" jargon is going to stop that nor will sway a jury if the case is strong one that the manufacturer is a fault.
Stupid is as stupid does. There is no such thing as "fool proof."
Even so, a company should NEVER allow its legal department write copy or run the business.
r33 you need to see the documentary about that hot coffee McD case. It's not what you read in the newspaper. It's not what your friends who told you how outrageous it is seem to think the facts were. Once you see it, you will understand why the jury awarded the plaintiff the money that they did.
The people behind the false dissemination of the facts of the case are corporations. It was a David vs Goliath lawsuit.
I can understand OP having views on these things. But why so angry?
I remember a DL poster a couple of years ago who just loved to pick arguments -- about anything, with anyone. He tried to argue with me once about whether I used to live where I said I did -- not about whether my depictions of the area were accurate, but whether I had actually lived there -- we don't know each other, so why would he question my statement about where I used to live? And how could he tell whether a stranger was lying about such a purely subjective topic in the first place?
Haven't seen his kind of insane posts lately, but maybe he's back as OP, R31, & various points in between.
Never you mind the tenor of my posts or whether you think I'm insane.
Both of you can buzz off now. Go cluck over something else today here at DL.
I said, run along … !
Microwaved food needs to sit to allow the radiation to dissipate.
R28 is correct. The way a microwave works is to sort of stimulate the molecules. The more active the molecule the more heat. That is a basic concept of a microwave. Or any cooking really.
So when you take something that is still very active, even though it is in the process of slowing down, it has not stopped completely the second it is out of the microwave. Similar to a cast iron pan will still be very hot after you take it off the burner. The more dense the item or food, the slower it cools down.
This is why a lot of food dose not cook well in a microwave. A chicken breast is thicker in one end and very thin in another causing under cooked or over cooked parts. Not even because of the density. Microwaves heat unevenly which is why foods that you stir do better in them.
Google it yourself you lazy bitch if you don't believe us. Or watch this vid.
Then don't let it rest and shut the fuck up. This really bothers you?
I think this thread has been done to death and needs to take a rest itself. It was a rather trivial question to begin with.
R37 pretty much confirms that he & R33, R31, R22, R15, R12, R9, R7, & OP are Polly PissPot! Guess it's true that PP really can post bile from anywhere & everywhere! Sadly...
The guy at your link did NOT say this:
"So when you take something that is still very active, even though it is in the process of slowing down, it has not stopped completely the second it is out of the microwave. "
Therefore, you leap to conclusions with this analogy:
"Similar to a cast iron pan will still be very hot after you take it off the burner."
When the magnetron stops stimulating the water molecules, they start to cool down. They are NOT still vibrating as you seem to believe.
I did not get up this morning believing I HAD to earn your respect or approbation.
Good day to you. I said, GOOD DAY!
I hate when you visit people like r32 that dont use a microwave. It takes them an hour just to heat up food.
So you don't burn yourself, moron.
That is what happens when you use microwaves R41, always over done.
[quote]When the magnetron stops stimulating the water molecules, they start to cool down. They are NOT still vibrating as you seem to believe.
Yes, microwaves heat food by inducing a real physical 'vibration' into food molecules at a rate of 2.4 GHz. They aren't vibrating once the microwave turns off, but they certainly remain in motion. Motion = heat. The motion diminishes as the food cools, yet some cooking continues until some arbitrary temperature, say 140 degrees, is reached.
Your an idiot R43. Did you ever have high school science? Heat is generated by the motion of the electrons.
Just because the microwave (or any heat source) has stopped stimulating them, they are still very active. That is why thing take time to cool down to their normal state.
By your logic, a cast iron pan would return to its normal room temperature state the second you took it off the burner.
There is indeed residual heat in the food that was indeed created when the molecules were set into motion by the magnetron.
You two actually believe the molecules are "still very active."
You both need to grasp the concept of residual heat.
On the positive side OP, you don't need to let your meds rest before swallowing them.
[quote]you need to see the documentary about that hot coffee McD case. It's not what you read in the newspaper. It's not what your friends who told you how outrageous it is seem to think the facts were. Once you see it, you will understand why the jury awarded the plaintiff the money that they did.
I studied this case in law school. While the woman did not deserve the original award for doing something so foolish, MacDonald's should have settled long before it went to court. They did not want to set a precedent for paying off on frivolous cases.
[quote]You two actually believe the molecules are "still very active." You both need to grasp the concept of residual heat.
Heat is molecular motion, pure and simple. Remove the heating source and the materials will still have heat and molecular motion, unless it's very cold, indeed (i.e. absolute zero.)
'Cooking' is a subjective term, but it's a chemical reaction that can still take place even if heat is not being actively applied. The food simply has to be hot enough to continue the chemical reaction.
BTW, early on after the invention of the magnetron, some geniuses thought it would be great for central heating! They thought it would be wise to heat room occupants directly, skipping a step or two. Luckily, concerns about RF exposure prevailed!
Yes but without stimulation by the magnetron's waves, molecular motion is decreasing instead of increasing, meaning no more he is being added.