"j.j." > wrote in message
...
> A friend, who's first and last experience with it was rack of lamb
> at a nice restaurant in San Francisco, says the texture is like eating
> a blood clot. (I didn't ask him how he knew what *that* was like.) I've
> only had lamb once -- a rather gamey tasting leg of lamb at a friend's
> house when I was a kid. I don't recall anything more than not liking
> it. So what would you say the texture of lamb like? Is it more similar
> to beef or to chicken or is it a texture unto itself? I'd like to try
> some lamb chops, but the concept of eating a blood clot is a bit much
> for me... ;^)
>

Ridiculous answers precede this.

Lamb is a softer meat than beef and if cooked rare will have
a bloody softness that fits your friend's description perfectly.
At a good medium rare (130 F when removed from the heat)
lamb seizes a bit, picks up some texture and becomes the
wonderful food that most of the world loves.

Some like very rare lamb, as some love very rare rib of beef,
both of which show that same texture that could be problematic.
If you cook the rack or leg to a decent medium rare you should
have no problem and will rather enjoy this wonderful meat. The
"gaminess" goes away with the longer cooking, by the way.

pavane