On Jan 2, 9:44*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:21:18 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
> wrote:
>
> > It makes perfect sense to me - *a slow roast gives the heat enough
> > time to move throughout the entire roast without overcooking the
> > outside. You want to minimize the temperature differential as much as
> > possible. Mostly, it's the people that never tried it or gave the
> > matter some thought that are non-believers.
>
> I want a roast to cook with varying degrees of doneness. *Not everyone
> likes it as rare as I do and the way I do it accommodates them too.
> --
Yes that's the point isn't it? Different methods produce different
results. So if you like a gradation from crusty bits on the outer
edges to juicy red in the middle you use a higher temperature, while
if you like uniform doneness as much as possible you use a lower
temperature. Neither method is the only way to do it -- choose the
one that gives the result you want.

Personally, I used the traditional high-then-moderate method for a
long time, then experimented with the low temp method. Decided I
liked the contrast and variety of the first method and went back to
it. Guests are able to have a little more choice of cut, too, as you
say. -aem