Originally Posted by Jazzop

I prefer filets for the following reasons:

1. I hate fat. I nearly gag when I get a piece of fat in my mouth. This results in a couple of things:
(a) I prefer less-marbled cuts of beef. The filet avoids the fat, yet still has a greater level of tenderness.
(b) I can't stand to pay a bunch of money for a steak that requires me to trim off 50% of its mass in fat.

2. I like bloody-as-hell steaks. The filet is one of the thicker cuts that yields a high bloody-meat-to-cooked-surface ratio

3. I do not want to spend my dinner cutting out all the useless crap that I won't eat: fat, bones, connective tissue. I get paid to perform autopsies, so I don't volunteer to do them for free at dinnertime.



Fat does not "equal" flavor. Or, if it does, then the statements "salt equals flavor" and "Tabasco sauce equals flavor" are equally correct (and nonsensical). Wine expert Kevin Zraly would probably yell at you and say that fat has no flavor at all (since it is neither sweet salty, sour, or bitter), merely mouthfeel.

Your argument is typical of people who tend to eat corn-fed beef. An aged, grass-fed steak, no matter the cut, will have plenty of flavor, I assure you.



It has fame for being expensive, but it is often not. When you consider the waste involved in a cut that has bone, gristle, and fat, the per-ounce cost of a filet is about the same. Sometimes the absolute cost is lower than a NY strip on the same menu.