Large Lobsters

Go big or go home

To me anything under 2.5 lbs have little meat (once all the shells are removed). My sweet spot is around 3.5 to 4 lbs.

T&t priced theirs with premiums ($3 - $4 more) for 2-6 lbs .

Simple supply and demand is why you primarily see lobsters at Asian Grocers.

Non Asians generally eat a whole lobster/person boiled/steamed/broiled...so you're not likely to serve a 5lb lobster to one person.
vs.
Asians quite often chop up their lobster and stir fry and share/eat family style.

gr8dlr wrote: ↑ Simple supply and demand is why you primarily see lobsters at Asian Grocers.

Non Asians generally eat a whole lobster/person boiled/steamed/broiled...so you're not likely to serve a 5lb lobster to one person.
vs.
Asians quite often chop up their lobster and stir fry and share/eat family style.

Lol … yup
It’s like any other product that comes in BULK Sizing to feed a larger family
*wink*

You shop at the store that stocks the size you need

The sweet spot for lobsters to eat in the western way is actually between 1.5-2 LB
Any more and the meat gets tough and rubbery... Which makes it perfect for the Asian style of chopping it up and stir frying. Or straight up floured and deep fried.

Thats why you see mostly 1.5-2 LB lobsters @ western super markets. That is the best size for eating steamed/boiled with butter. Or even quickly grilled. The meat is more tender and sweet @ this point. These lobsters fetch the highest prices.

I personally like the canners 1LB'ers. Less meat but its sweeter and more tender. But I stopped buying them they got rid of $5 per canner... Canner's are suppose to be cheap things.

UrbanPoet wrote: ↑ The sweet spot for lobsters to eat in the western way is actually between 1.5-2 LB
Any more and the meat gets tough and rubbery... Which makes it perfect for the Asian style of chopping it up and stir frying. Or straight up floured and deep fried.

Thats why you see mostly 1.5-2 LB lobsters @ western super markets. That is the best size for eating steamed/boiled with butter. Or even quickly grilled. The meat is more tender and sweet @ this point. These lobsters fetch the highest prices.

I personally like the canners 1LB'ers. Less meat but its sweeter and more tender. But I stopped buying them they got rid of $5 per canner... Canner's are suppose to be cheap things.

Highly recommend you get together a bunch of lobster lovers and try the Omei Restaurant (Hwy 7) Giant Lobster 4 ways. Your opinion on large lobster will not be the same.

https://havesporkwilltravel.wordpress.c ... la-4-ways/

https://www.omeirichmondhill.com/

gr8dlr wrote: ↑ Highly recommend you get together a bunch of lobster lovers and try the Omei Restaurant (Hwy 7) Giant Lobster 4 ways. Your opinion on large lobster will not be the same.

https://havesporkwilltravel.wordpress.c ... la-4-ways/

https://www.omeirichmondhill.com/

Oh don’t get me wrong. Its not bad. Its great when prepared this way.

UrbanPoet wrote: ↑ The sweet spot for lobsters to eat in the western way is actually between 1.5-2 LB
Any more and the meat gets tough and rubbery... Which makes it perfect for the Asian style of chopping it up and stir frying. Or straight up floured and deep fried.

Thats why you see mostly 1.5-2 LB lobsters @ western super markets. That is the best size for eating steamed/boiled with butter. Or even quickly grilled. The meat is more tender and sweet @ this point. These lobsters fetch the highest prices.

I personally like the canners 1LB'ers. Less meat but its sweeter and more tender. But I stopped buying them they got rid of $5 per canner... Canner's are suppose to be cheap things.

I have always wondered why people liked those big, tough lobsters. Never thought of the different cooking methods. Very informative post.

gr8dlr wrote: ↑so you're not likely to serve a 5lb lobster to one person.

Not to normies I guess.... I'd eat a whole 5lb in a sitting. Heck I could eat two of them in a sitting.
20% yield means you're only getting like 1lb of meat. Although I'm not sure if yield scales relative to size. 20% applies to like 1.5lbs.

UrbanPoet wrote: ↑ Any more and the meat gets tough and rubbery...

I've cooked a few 5lb lobsters and I don't really find them that tough. I wonder if people are overcooking them.

UrbanPoet wrote: ↑ The sweet spot for lobsters to eat in the western way is actually between 1.5-2 LB
Any more and the meat gets tough and rubbery... Which makes it perfect for the Asian style of chopping it up and stir frying. Or straight up floured and deep fried.

Thats why you see mostly 1.5-2 LB lobsters @ western super markets. That is the best size for eating steamed/boiled with butter. Or even quickly grilled. The meat is more tender and sweet @ this point. These lobsters fetch the highest prices.

I personally like the canners 1LB'ers. Less meat but its sweeter and more tender. But I stopped buying them they got rid of $5 per canner... Canner's are suppose to be cheap things.

And because it takes you 7 years to eat it?

Gutty96 wrote: ↑ And because it takes you 7 years to eat it?

Lol …
I saw what you did there

DATA POINT … Canner Lobsters and Canned Lobster ain’t the same thing
Canners refers to a size (250 to 375 grams)
Small Lobsters that were traditionally used in the canning industry *
Big enough to catch … but not popular for restaurant fare cuz of their smaller size.
Damaged … “not so pretty” lobsters also didn’t make it your plate in a fancy restaurant …
They also ended up at the cannery

death_hawk wrote: ↑ Not to normies I guess.... I'd eat a whole 5lb in a sitting. Heck I could eat two of them in a sitting.
20% yield means you're only getting like 1lb of meat. Although I'm not sure if yield scales relative to size. 20% applies to like 1.5lbs.



I've cooked a few 5lb lobsters and I don't really find them that tough. I wonder if people are overcooking them.

Re : 5LB lobster. You mean steamed/boiled whole? If you steam/boil a whole 5 LB lobster. It’ll take too long to cook.

The Chinese method of chopping for stir fry or deep fried helps mitigate the toughness because you don’t have to cook smaller pieces as long. Also some Chinese restaurant trade secrets like tenderizing the meat. Not only does it tenderize, it makes it a bright white shiny colour. Great presentation.

UrbanPoet wrote: ↑ Re : 5LB lobster. You mean steamed/boiled whole? If you steam/boil a whole 5 LB lobster. It’ll take too long to cook.

I've steamed and ovened it.
In fact I treat it like a roast. Stick a thermometer in and figure out what it is internally.
X minutes per pound is stupid for fish too.

The Chinese method of chopping for stir fry or deep fried helps mitigate the toughness because you don’t have to cook smaller pieces as long. Also some Chinese restaurant trade secrets like tenderizing the meat. Not only does it tenderize, it makes it a bright white shiny colour. Great presentation.

This would work too.
Wouldn't shock me if they tenderize it as well.

death_hawk wrote: ↑ X minutes per pound is stupid for fish too.

Fish is done x minutes per inch thickness.

death_hawk wrote: ↑ I've steamed and ovened it.
In fact I treat it like a roast. Stick a thermometer in and figure out what it is internally.
X minutes per pound is stupid for fish too.

This would work too.
Wouldn't shock me if they tenderize it as well.

besides sticking a probe up the lobster's gazoo, where should i stick the probe in?

lecale wrote: ↑ Fish is done x minutes per inch thickness.

Again a stupid way of cooking. If your burner isn't the same temperature as whoever wrote the time, you're gonna have different results.

A thermometer is better in every situation.

evilYoda wrote: ↑
besides sticking a probe up the lobster's gazoo, where should i stick the probe in?

Lobster's gazoo works.

death_hawk wrote: ↑ Again a stupid way of cooking. If your burner isn't the same temperature as whoever wrote the time, you're gonna have different results.

A thermometer is better in every situation.

I challenge you to affix a probe thermometer to a 1" fish fillet on a baking sheet in a preheated oven (& properly account for the fact that fish continues cooking briefly after it is removed).

Skill & knowledge counts for something. You cannot master everything based on a thermometer tool.

lecale wrote: ↑ I challenge you to affix a probe thermometer to a 1" fish fillet on a baking sheet in a preheated oven

I'd use an instant read.

(& properly account for the fact that fish continues cooking briefly after it is removed).

That's part of skill and knowledge.
You almost always have to account for carryover in all methods of cooking. Even cooking based on time and temperature. Although it's actually worse because you don't know the internal anyways so you can't account for something you don't know.

You cannot master everything based on a thermometer tool.

I 100% disagree with this. Knowing the temperature of things means you can make educated decisions on your cooking process.
Literally guessing (ie cooking based on time and temperature) gives you random results.

I'm not saying that time and temperature isn't okay for an estimate, but relying on it to finish a product means it might be great or it might be terrible.
A thermometer (that's properly used and calibrated correctly) gives you 100% accurate results. What you do with those results is a matter of skill and knowledge.

This is why a thermometer(s because there's 2 different types that are equally yet separately useful) is literally 2nd on my list of things for a novice cook to buy when starting with nothing. A good knife is first.
Knowing how your food is cooking means you reduce both over and under cooked food.

death_hawk wrote: ↑ I'd use an instant read.

When you are cooking something 6-8 minutes total, you had better know what done "looks" like. You would not use an instant read on cookies either. You look for the glossiness/wetness of the surface through the oven window without opening the oven door to let the heat escape.

death_hawk wrote: ↑ That's part of skill and knowledge.
You almost always have to account for carryover in all methods of cooking. Even cooking based on time and temperature. Although it's actually worse because you don't know the internal anyways so you can't account for something you don't know.

I 100% disagree with this. Knowing the temperature of things means you can make educated decisions on your cooking process.
Literally guessing (ie cooking based on time and temperature) gives you random results.

Knowing what something is supposed to look like is skill & knowledge. Using a thermometer is just measuring, & then you need to interpret what those numbers mean by experience.

If you think that using time is "guessing," you simply do not have the skill to cook using time. This can be learned. It used to be the only way possible to cook things.

death_hawk wrote: ↑ I'm not saying that time and temperature isn't okay for an estimate, but relying on it to finish a product means it might be great or it might be terrible.
A thermometer (that's properly used and calibrated correctly) gives you 100% accurate results. What you do with those results is a matter of skill and knowledge.

This is why a thermometer(s because there's 2 different types that are equally yet separately useful) is literally 2nd on my list of things for a novice cook to buy when starting with nothing. A good knife is first.
Knowing how your food is cooking means you reduce both over and under cooked food.

You can judge by how fish flakes with a fork, or how much "jiggle" there is in a steak. Thermometers are overrated & require you to build a lot of skill to use them properly just as cooking by eye does.

lecale wrote: ↑ When you are cooking something 6-8 minutes total, you had better know what done "looks" like.

6-8 minutes is a huge range. Might be time to refine that down a little to make sure you know what done looks like.

You would not use an instant read on cookies either. You look for the glossiness/wetness of the surface through the oven window without opening the oven door to let the heat escape.

Fine. 99% of all things are better with a thermometer.

Knowing what something is supposed to look like is skill & knowledge. Using a thermometer is just measuring, & then you need to interpret what those numbers mean by experience.

Skill and knowledge that not everyone possesses. A thermometer takes the guesswork out for a novice cook.
Just because I can poke a steak and tell you what the internal is like doesn't mean everyone can. Using a thermometer means that anyone can.
Using time and temp means that a steak that's slightly thicker than you had last time is now rare instead of medium rare.

If you think that using time is "guessing," you simply do not have the skill to cook using time. This can be learned. It used to be the only way possible to cook things.

I never said it's impossible to cook something with it. I'm saying you get far better results when you actually know what's going in inside your food.
Using time is literally guessing. With experience it's an educated guess and if things are consistent enough that guess can be fairly accurate, but any change in size of thing or a variation in temperature means that the time that worked great last time produced meh results this time.

You can judge by how fish flakes with a fork

Why would I fork the presentation of a fish when I can put a tiny discreet hole in it?

, or how much "jiggle" there is in a steak.

Which no one that hasn't cooked a lot of steaks is going to be able to do.
Also this isn't cooking with a time/temperature. This is cooking based on experience.
Someone that doesn't have experience is going to do better using a thermometer over every other method.

Thermometers are overrated & require you to build a lot of skill to use them properly just as cooking by eye does.

What? Stick it in the middle and call it a day. What kind of skills do you think you'll need?
You can teach literally any idiot to read a thermometer. Placement isn't even that hard. Aim for center mass and move it around until the temp stops going down.

Cooking by eye requires FAR more skill. Cooking by time/temperature if anything reduces your skill level because of inconsistent results.
I know of a few people that get discouraged because their food isn't cooked properly. I've fixed this by giving them a thermometer. Now their turkey comes out perfect.

Actually turkey is a great example. How many people have had a dry turkey? This is something that one cooks once or twice a year. Practically everyone overcooks it. How do they cook it? Time and temperature.
I can't remember the last time I made a dry turkey because I take the temperature of it. I don't even make gravy sometimes if it's just for me. Despite having years of experience in commercial kitchens, I still temp my turkey. Does time and temperature give m a rough idea on when it'll be ready? Sure. I never disputed that. But I'm not going to get a perfect turkey cooking it for 13 minutes a pound.