"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "--" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Thanks for playing. If there is no weight difference there is no
> > difference
> >>in juice lost. Even Alton Brown did a show on it.
> >
> > The criterion has not been if weight is lost, it is whether the meat is
> > jucier.
> >
> > It is a fallacy to assume loss of fluid = lack of "juiciness"
> >
> > E,g., leaving the milk on my cereal for twenty minutes makes the cereal
> > less
> > juicy, but yet no weight is lost.
>
> As the cereal sits in the milk it becomes more juicy. think about it..

actually, my cereal does not become more juicy
- the milk becomes less dominant as a free component, the cereal becomes a
soggy mass as the water combines with the flour, and the free liquid is
gone.

My example and your response goes to the heart of the question about a test
for juiciness -
is it about water staying in the fiber,
is it about water sitting between fibers and running out when chewed,
and thus is it really about losing water from the piece of meat or is it
where the juice resides when it remains in the meat?

I hold that juiciness is a measure of the free liquid remaining in the
meat, not the measure of liquid remaining in the meat.



>
>