Is the '137 Club' the Best Way to Cook Steak? Reddit Says Yes, So I Tried It
One curious phenomenon has commenters proclaiming that 137 degrees Fahrenheit is the best temperature for cooking steak sous vide. The cooking hack allegedly yields the best flavor and texture. Ribeye is the most common cut in many discussions, but I've seen recommendations on cheaper cuts of beef like chuck steak and New York strip. A Reddit search reveals over 125 threads on the aptly named "137 Club." So I dug deeper to look at the science behind this cooking trend and, of course, tried it for myself.
The science of cooking the perfect steak
I seasoned every steak identically with salt, granulated garlic powder and cracked black pepper.
John Carlsen/CNET
Ahead of my test, I hit the books. My first instinct was to consult Modernist Cuisine by Nathan Myhrvold, Chris Young and Maxine Bilet, which is one of the most comprehensive resources on the science of cooking.
With a list price that usually tops $500, over 2,400 pages across six volumes and no digital version, this is easier said than done. Fortunately, I found a copy of the more compact Modernist Cuisine at Home in Brigham Young University's collection near my home. ("More compact" is a relative term since it's also huge.) Thankfully, Modernist Cuisine at Home has an entire section about cooking steak, including the sous vide method.
Vacuum sealing the steaks overnight allowed the seasoning to work as a marinade.
John Carlsen/CNET
The book groups cuts of steak into two categories: tender (filet, tenderloin, New York strip, ribeye, T-bone and so on) and tough cuts (chuck, skirt, hanger, flat iron, flank and so on). Tender cuts typically cook at lower temperatures, with the authors and their lab generally preferring a medium rare doneness around 133 F in most cases. In contrast, the recommendations for tough cuts hover around 144 F to 149 F, which the book implies is a more traditional roast-like result: think tender and flaky rather than extra juicy.
Douglas Baldwin's masterclass A Practical Guide to Sous Vide Cooking, cites multiple scientific papers that suggest the best tenderness results with beef lie somewhere between 120 F and 150 F, with specific mention of 131 F to 140 F for cheaper, tougher cuts of beef. This appears to be the sweet spot for converting tough collagen into smooth, flavorful gelatin.
Additionally, Modernist Cuisine at Home suggests that ribeye, a tender cut of meat, turns out best after three hours at 133 F. There are small differences between the resources, but both seem to validate the 137 Club as a catchall method for steak.
The steaks barely fit in the container I use for my sous vide bath, but I made it work with some strategic spacers and weights.
John Carlsen/CNET
While I wasn't able to track down the founding member of the 137 Club, I know that the term started gaining steam in April 2020, at least on Reddit.
If I had to guess why 137 F became the magic number, it probably comes down to preference for the first person who tried it -- they might have liked it more medium than medium rare. After all, 137 degrees falls in the aforementioned temperature range, with a margin of error in case the temperature of the sous vide bath fluctuates during cooking. In this case, the temperature could vary by 3 degrees either way without affecting the results too heavily.
My research ends here, but I doubt I'll be the last person wondering where it all came from.
The experiment
We all tried three samples with a simple survey asking about the texture, flavor and anything else that stood out.
John Carlsen/CNET
Now that we know that there's some science behind the 137 Club, it's time to test. I originally intended to test it with ribeye, which frequently comes up in 137 Club threads. It has a great balance of fatty tissue that supposedly renders better at a higher temperature. Instead, I found tender 1-inch T-bones on sale, which will work just fine.
The main purpose was to see if there were any noticeable differences in the cooking. There were five taste testers: myself and four others who I'll refer to as Annette, Lauren, Hank and Nora. None of us had tasted the 137 F method before.
Steak A: Grilled
This was also the fastest cook because it required practically no additional prep beyond seasoning.
John Carlsen/CNET
I grilled Steak A in the traditional style, using a timer and a meat thermometer to reach an internal temperature of 131 F. (I aimed for 129 F, but grills are fickle things.) It took about 7 minutes.
All of us agreed the traditional grilled steak was the least tender of the three steaks. As expected, the inside of the steak wasn't as consistent as with the sous vide steaks. However, it was juicy and the outside seared perfectly because I didn't have to worry as much about ruining the sous vide steaks. Nora even said it was her favorite: "Most flavor, I can taste each seasoning."
Steak B: Sous vide at 129 F for 60 minutes
I learned to sous vide steak at 129 F, so it was a good comparison point.
John Carlsen/CNET
I cooked Steak B with my normal sous vide method of 129 F for 60 minutes. (Note: I usually do 120 minutes, but shortened it due to time constraints.) Crucially, this steak lies outside the temperature range mentioned earlier. Since the experiment was at a family member's house, I chose to sear the sous vide steaks on the grill, which isn't as precise or powerful as my trusty blowtorch.
Also, searing multiple T-bones with my small blowtorch would've taken an eternity. Likewise, I could've done a better job by not searing all three sous vide steaks at the same time.
I bought four steaks in total, so there were two Steak Bs, with the thinner one turning out slightly more medium after searing.
John Carlsen/CNET
As a result, Steak B's crust was uneven and the flavor wasn't as pronounced as the grilled steak. The fat also didn't render as well as the other steaks. Everyone liked how soft this steak was, with one tester saying it fell apart in her mouth. Still, Steak B was the favorite option of three tasters: Annette, Lauren and me.
However, it was the lowest-ranked steak for the other two respondents. Hank said it was "a little too different for my liking but still enjoyable." Meanwhile, Nora simply liked it but wrote "would not order again." I'll try not to take it personally.
Steak C: Sous vide at 137 F for 60 minutes (also known as the 137 Club)
In my case, I feel like it was a toss-up between Steak B (middle) and Steak C (left).
John Carlsen/CNET
I cooked Steak C at 137 F for an hour before keeping it warm in the 129 F bath with Steak B for another hour. Yes, the extra time affected the final result on Steak C, but seeing that many 137 Club threads suggest cooking for at least 120 minutes, I was fine adding a little more time. The sear turned out a little better than with Steak B.
We all noticed that it wasn't as moist as the other sous vide steak, but it was extremely juicy. However, Steak C was flakier, more tender and seemed to have a deeper flavor because the fat had more time to render out and interact with the meat. Juiciness was the deciding factor for the tasters who preferred the other sous vide steak. But Steak C certainly had fans and was very good, with Hank saying it was "the best of the three in my opinion."
What's the verdict on the 137 Club?
Despite juggling cooking times and completing three steak methods simultaneously, it's always so rewarding to share good food with family.
John Carlsen/CNET
I learned two things from this experiment. First, sous vide steaks cooked at 137 F are just as delicious as other methods. It also seems to render fat more effectively than lower sous vide temperatures with a slightly higher level of doneness. It's ideal when you have a few hours to let the water bath work its magic. This helps balance out some of the confirmation bias of the many positive sentiments on Reddit.
Secondly, whether anyone likes the final result ultimately reflects their personal preferences and that's fine. While medium rare is very popular for a lot of people, there are individuals -- my wife included -- who prefer medium-well and well-done steaks. (In case you're wondering, she says well-done sous vide steaks are delicious and much more forgiving than on the grill.)
A final bonus lesson is something I've experienced many times -- it's a blast to experiment when you find something interesting that's within your skills. Trying one thing doesn't mean giving up a treasured cooking method or a favorite meal, but it can open up your possibilities and help you find new ways to make great food.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Taurine: From Energy Drink Darling to Cancer Suspect?
Taurine enjoys a strong reputation for boosting both physical and mental performance and has long been a staple ingredient in many energy drinks. A 2023 study in Science even suggested that supplementing this amino sulfonic acid — which the body can produce endogenously — could extend life span, at least in mice and monkeys. That research, led by Parminder Singh, PhD, of the Buck Institute in Novato, California, also observed that taurine levels in human blood appear to decline with age. These findings helped fuel a rise in over-the-counter taurine supplement sales. But new evidence suggests that the antiaging effects may be overstated — and that high intake of taurine could even pose risks, including a possible increase in blood cancer susceptibility for some individuals. Poor Fit as Aging Biomarker A more recent Science study casts further doubt on taurine's longevity promise. Maria Emilia Fernandez, PhD, and colleagues at the National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, found that taurine does not serve as a reliable biomarker of biological aging. Unlike the earlier cross-sectional study, their longitudinal research repeatedly measured taurine levels in participants over time. The results showed no consistent age-related decline. In many cases, taurine concentrations increased with age. The researchers concluded that individual variability far outweighed any patterns linked to aging. No Reliable Reference Ranges 'There are no reliable reference values for taurine that could be applied broadly to the general population,' Kristina Norman, MD, head of the Department of Nutrition and Gerontology at the German Institute of Human Nutrition in Potsdam-Rehbrücke, Nuthetal, Germany, told Medscape's German edition . Still, she noted that the study doesn't rule out the possibility that taurine may have beneficial effects in specific contexts — such as for cardiometabolic health. 'That was not the question Fernandez and her colleagues set out to explore,' said Norman, who is also the deputy director of the Research Group in Geriatrics at the Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 'There are a number of interventional studies on taurine supplementation,' Norman added, 'but the results have been inconsistent, which makes interpretation difficult.' Currently, the effects of taurine appear highly dependent on individual factors, including a person's age and underlying health status. As such, Norman advised that taurine supplementation should neither be broadly recommended nor discouraged at this stage. Taurine in the Diet — and in the Data According to the European Food Safety Authority, the maximum safe daily intake of taurine is 100 mg/kg of body weight — about 7 g for a 70-kg adult. European regulations limit taurine in energy drinks to no more than 4 g/L. Taurine also occurs naturally as a breakdown product of the amino acids cysteine and methionine, particularly in meat, fish, seafood, and dairy products. Fernandez's study analyzed data from three human cohorts (973 participants in total) as well as blood samples from rhesus monkeys and mice. The researchers found no evidence of age-related declines in circulating taurine levels among healthy individuals — in fact, levels were often stable or increased with age. Diet, rather than age, showed a stronger correlation with taurine concentrations. Moreover, they found no association between taurine levels and physical parameters such as muscle strength or body weight. 'These findings challenge the prevailing hypothesis that taurine declines with age and contributes to aging,' Norman said. Linked With Leukemia Cell Growth A second study, recently published in Nature , has raised new concerns about potential risks associated with high taurine intake. Researchers led by Sonali Sharma, PhD, from the Department of Biomedical Genetics at the Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, found elevated taurine concentrations in the microenvironment of leukemia cells. They also identified taurine transporters on the cell membranes, which facilitated the uptake of taurine into the cells, where it appeared to support glycolysis. According to Sharma's team, taurine may play a role in both the development and progression of leukemia. 'It's still unclear whether this potential risk applies broadly or only to certain individuals — such as those with a personal or family history of blood cancer,' said Norman. She also noted that it remains uncertain whether orally supplemented taurine even reaches the tumor microenvironment. Nevertheless, she added, the findings open up new therapeutic possibilities — namely, targeting taurine transporters in malignant cells as a novel approach to leukemia treatment. Benefit for Longevity or Performance The Nature study also reinforces the need to re-evaluate taurine's use as a dietary supplement. 'Individuals at increased risk of leukemia should probably avoid taurine supplementation,' Norman advised. More broadly, she noted there is currently no strong evidence to support taurine's use for enhancing physical or cognitive performance or slowing the aging process. 'We simply don't have high-quality data confirming whether taurine works — or at what dose,' Norman said. She also cautioned that taurine's side-effect profile remains poorly understood. 'Taurine could potentially offer benefits in some clinical contexts,' she acknowledged. 'But right now, I would discourage people from taking it on their own 'just in case.''
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
University of Iowa launches first-of-its-kind space probe
A space mission led by professors from the University of Iowa launched in California on Wednesday. The 'TRACERS Spacecraft' was in development for eight years. The university held a launch party for everyone to watch it take off into orbit Wednesday afternoon. 'It's the first of its size and kind that's ever been led by the University of Iowa.' said Associate Professor for the Department of Physics and Astrology Allison Jaynes. Space always seems far away, but for the University of Iowa it's within reach. The university's physics and astronomy department led a mission with NASA to send up Tandem Reconnection and Cusp Electrodynamics Reconnaissance Satellites, or TRACERS for short. The TRACERS work in a pair and help predict space weather. 'So, we have sort of a shield made of magnetic field around the Earth but some of that energy that comes from the sun in the form of a solar wind gets inside of that shield and we want to know when and where and how much energy gets in,' said Jaynes. Space weather may not seem like something that affects us on Earth, but it does have an impact on farmers. 'In Iowa specifically we use GPS-guided tractors to do all of our farming for example, and space weather can really mess up that signal, so we're hoping that with technology and missions like this we can better predict that space weather just like we predict terrestrial weather,' said Jaynes. Students worked alongside experts on the mission, and it was a learning experience for everyone. 'It was definitely intimidating at first but it's also very cool to see the behind-the -cenes of how the team structure works, how we're deciding the data comes down and the communication with NASA and all that, so I feel like I'm learning so much every week,' said graduate student Brendan Powers, who also worked on the space probes. The mission was successful. The TRACERS were let into orbit and the spaceship landed back on Earth in less than eight minutes. Jaynes described it as an 'ideal launch.' The satellites will orbit for about a year before they burn in the atmosphere. 027-David Miles speaks to a community gathering at the Space and Missile Technology Center, a museum commemorating historic rocket launches at Vandenberg. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Loneliness May Drive Depression, Poor Physical Health
TOPLINE: Frequent loneliness was associated with a higher probability of depression and an increased number of poor mental and physical health days per month than never feeling lonely in a new survey-based study. Additionally, significant disparities were observed across sex, race/ethnicity, and age groups. METHODOLOGY: Investigators assessed data for more than 47,000 US adults (62% women; 73% White individuals) obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System between 2016 and 2023. They analyzed the potential association between loneliness and key health outcomes, including a diagnosis of depression and the self-reported number of days in the past month with poor mental or physical health. Participants self-reported the frequency of feeling lonely, which was categorized as always, usually, sometimes, rarely, and never. TAKEAWAY: Participants who reported always, usually, sometimes, and rarely feeling lonely had a significantly higher probability of depression (50%, 48%, 31%, and 16%, respectively; P < .001 for all) than those who reported never feeling lonely (10%). Those who reported always feeling lonely had 10.9 more poor mental health days and 5 more poor physical health days in a month on average than those who were never lonely (P < .001 for all). Women had a higher probability of depression than men across all loneliness levels (P < .001). There was also a significantly greater number of poor mental health days in women vs men who felt lonely sometimes (mean difference, 0.8 days; P = .002) and rarely (mean difference, 0.7 days; P = .003). Black and Hispanic individuals reporting loneliness had significantly lower probabilities of depression than their White peers (P < .05 for both). Among participants who felt always lonely, Black individuals reported fewer poor mental health days (mean difference, -3.8 days; P = .005) and fewer poor physical health days (mean difference, -3.6 days; P = .01) in a month than White individuals. Middle-aged (45-64 years) and older adults (> 64 years) with loneliness reported a greater number of poor physical health days in a month than younger adults (18-44 years) across all loneliness categories (P < .001 for all). However, older adults had a significantly lower risk for depression than younger adults across most loneliness levels. IN PRACTICE: 'Addressing loneliness may not only improve individual well-being but also reduce societal healthcare burdens,' the investigators wrote. 'The findings of this study carry urgent policy and practice implications. Given the pervasiveness and potency of loneliness, it should be prioritized alongside traditional risk factors in public health planning,' they added. SOURCE: The study was led by Oluwasegun Akinyemi, MD, PhD, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC. It was published online on July 9 in PLOS One. LIMITATIONS: Key limitations included the study's cross-sectional design, residual confounding by unmeasured factors, and its reliance on self-reported measures. Additionally, telephone-based survey methods may have underrepresented the most socially isolated individuals. DISCLOSURES: The study was funded in part by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. The investigators reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
