5

I would like to know the difference between sweating and sautéeing? Is the difference between the two, the fact that one uses oil, and the other uses fat, or are there any other aspects to be considered?

Jack Maddington
  • 397
  • 1
  • 8
  • 17

1 Answers1

8

The answer is a bit complicated, because there is a confusing language issue here.

In standard cooking terminology, there is nothing in common between the two (except that both are stovetop). Sautéeing requires a wicked hot pan, a layer of oil (you can't use nonstick at these temperatures), and constant movement of the food. Basically, you are burning/caramelizing the outermost layer of your small pieces of vegetable while keeping the inside juicy. And if you'd let the food rest for a few seconds in contact with the hot pan, it will burn, so you have to keep it jumping.

Sweating is the process of allowing heat to slowly break down the cell walls of the plant. It is done on medium low temperature, and frequent stirring is counterproductive. In fact, if the pan is not crowded, you can do the whole process without stirring at all. It is usually done with fat, because this produces some very tasty byproducts (I've read of a study found that one of the flavors people found to be most pleasant in meat was in fact produced by a chemical reaction of onions and butter). But the fat is not strictly necessary for the process to take place. The resulting vegetables are soft through and through, and have lost some of their water during the cell wall breakdown. It needs some experience to find the temperature at which the food won't burn, but the juice will cook off quickly enough to not turn the bottom layer limp.

But this terminology is not common among home cooks at all in English speaking countries. I have never seen the term "sweating" in an English recipe meant for home cooks. And for some reason, they use the term "sautéeing" instead, even when they are clearly not sautéeing at all in the culinary school sense. I don't know what has caused this strange language phenomenon, but it has led to a somewhat confusing situation.

The result is that you have to know your source. If it was written for and/or by home cooks, you can assume that there is no difference at all. When you read "sautéeing", you should sweat your vegetables, or brown the meat. If you are using a professional cooking resource, you need to use the other definition. Also, if it's for home cooks but a translation from a language which makes the distinction (e.g. German), it is possible that it uses culinary school terminology. It's a bit like the dinosaur/bird terminology problem in biology: depending on who is talking, it means different things.

rumtscho
  • 134,346
  • 44
  • 300
  • 545
  • 1
    I agree with everything except for "wicked hot" and the "you can't use nonstick at these temperatures." Maillard reactions begin to happen at significant rates in the 250-300F range, while caramelization happens in the 300-400F range. There's no reason your food surface needs to go significantly over 400F to saute, unless you plan to burn it. That's perfectly within the reasonable operating range of nonstick cookware. Also, almost all oils will be smoking like crazy before you get to bad temperatures for nonstick coatings; burning oil isn't usually the goal for saute. – Athanasius Jun 28 '15 at 00:44
  • @rumtscho, when you say "wicked hot pan", what do you mean by wicked? Also, when you say "bottom layer limp", what do you mean by "limp"? Sorry if I am not too familiar with these terms. – Jack Maddington Jun 28 '15 at 04:31
  • @Athanasius, what are Maillard reactions, and what is caramelization, from a practical and chemistry perspective? How do you distinguish between these two in professional cooking and home cooking? – Jack Maddington Jun 28 '15 at 04:32
  • @Athanasius You are right that you don't need wicked hot for caramelization, but when you do it to the point where it would burn if it doesn't jump (French: saut) all the time, then it is called "saute". It is a very special process of caramelization, just like torching is another special process of caramelization. If you do what you describe, with mid-temperature range and no smoking oil, this is a perfectly good way to caramelize food, but it is not the original meaning of "saute". It is the European equivalent of wokking, if you will. – rumtscho Jun 28 '15 at 11:17
  • @JackMaddington "Maillard" is a reaction between a protein and a carbohydrate, "caramelization" is a reaction in which a sugar is pyrolized by itself. Both lead to a tasty brown crust, and there is no difference in terminology between home cooking and chemistry (in fact, most home cooks don't know about Maillard). – rumtscho Jun 28 '15 at 11:20
  • I've seen advice by a few different European chefs that oil should NOT be smoking for a saute--perhaps *just below* the smoke point, but generally not smoking. Harold McGee says 350-450F, which would accord with that observation. [German Wikipedia says](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sautieren) 160-240C, which is similar, and [French Wikipedia says](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauter_%28cuisine%29) to use a "une température *relativement* élevée" (and shows a picture with a non-stick pan, I believe). Do you have a cite that suggests sauteing above the smoke point or >~450F? (I'm curious.) – Athanasius Jun 28 '15 at 14:00
  • Also, I realized my first comment may have been unclear -- I was talking about *food surface* temperatures to get browning reactions, not pan temperatures. Just to be clear: I wasn't suggesting sauteing with the pan at 300F or something. Obviously the pan should be hotter, but 350-450F or "just below smoking" is what I've usually heard (which is fine for non-stick). If there are other sources that disagree, though, I'm interested in hearing about them. – Athanasius Jun 28 '15 at 14:34