SousVide Supreme: My Review of The Gizmodo Review

I love gizmodo.  So, it is extremely frustrating to see a Gizmodo food review for a Sous Vide product that could have been a lot better.  While I am sure my review has plenty of flaws, and I am sure this will result in me having thrown stones in my own glass house, I just couldn't let this go.

Most of the review is really spent dissecting sous vide as a method of cooking and not the actual appliance.  For each protein the author reviews,  he discusses the advantages and disadvantages, which really has nothing to do with the SousVide Supreme.  He then ends each protein review with a rating of "Worth It / Draw / Not Worth It" ratings based on whether or not it produces the best results.  I fundamentally disagree with this approach because there isn't a singular best result for a given protein.  Another issue with this approach is that it is biased by the author's skill in the kitchen.

Did I mention that none of this has anything to do with the appliance itself?

I think my points couldn't be summed up better than when he speaks about short rib.

Verdict? I've never tasted slow-roasted meats like this—it was very good, and there's something to be said for transforming a rude cut of meat into a fine steak, but my in-oven slow-cooking method is as fool-proof, and has the added benefit of creating a carmelized sauce to go with it. It's a Draw

First of all, this has nothing to do with the SousVide Supreme.  Second of all, If the author didn't have a foolproof way of preparing short ribs, maybe this would have been Worth It.  Finally, If I had written about that, I would have been ranting and raving about how this is one of the most interesting proteins you can cook sous vide.  Don't get me wrong, I love (and make) a great braised short rib.  But I also love a 72 hour/136F short rib.  You get a bag full of short rib drippin's that you can turn into a pan sauce afterwards.

Another issue I have is that he also reviewed a protein that he didn't try.

Rack of lamb, rib roast, and other tender roast meats: Steak and duck are just a few of the "tender" meats that benefit from sous vide. I didn't try these others (partly cuz they're so damn expensive), but my experience with them in ovens, sometimes undercooking, sometimes overcooking, tells me how nice it would be to have the ability to reach a fixed internal temperature, even if it took many hours. Not Worth It.

I suspect this is also true of fish, which he said:

But anybody interested in buying a SousVide Supreme will have no problem broiling or poaching fish to their desired doneness, and you don't sear a cooked fish as you would a cooked steak, so the sous vide process is a liability, or at least a limitation.
Not Worth It.

There are some amazing results that can be achieved with fish.  Most people jump right to salmon mi cuit, but you should also try swordfish or monkfish, or seafood... or octopus.  It is definitely not for everyone, but I really don't agree with Not Worth It. Also, I don't understand the sear a cooked fish comment.  I sear fish before putting them in the oven and I also sear fish coming out of water bath.

I have the same basic comments for the vegetables section, although I think there were also some technical challenges in cooking artichokes.  One of the issues the author had involved the artichoke floating inside of the water bath.  A perfect chance to discuss whether or not the rack of the SousVide Supreme worked or didn't work.  Instead, we only hear about the fact that he had to use a plate.  Was the rack insufficient?

Final acknowledgements
Interestingly enough, the conclusion of the review comes back to the product and not to the technique.  And it's really hard to argue with that section.  It would have been awesome of more of the article was dedicated to that.

I know I probably sound like some crazy sous vide crusader, swashbuckling against anyone that criticizes the consumer end of the sous vide space.  But, c'mon!