"--" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.
>
>
Free liquid? Then the raw meat is not juicy. There is no "free liquid" in
raw meat. If you cut it no liquid runs out.

But I guess if you want to define the words to mean what you want them to
mean, then you are correct.

del
>
>>
>>
>
>