General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,256
Default Baa-a-a-a!!

d tie it, sear it
> till browned in a hot pan with olive oil and roast at about 325 until the
> internal temp was about 160.
>
> Always let the roast rest for 15 minutes to set the juices.
>
> Paul


Mein Gott, 160 deg. for lamb is way overdone. It should always be
served rare or nearly rare. Nobody wants it well done.

N.
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,744
Default Baa-a-a-a!!


"Nancy2" > wrote in message
...
>d tie it, sear it
>> till browned in a hot pan with olive oil and roast at about 325 until the
>> internal temp was about 160.
>>
>> Always let the roast rest for 15 minutes to set the juices.
>>
>> Paul

>
> Mein Gott, 160 deg. for lamb is way overdone. It should always be
> served rare or nearly rare. Nobody wants it well done.


Actually the times we made the roast I described it was quite lovely.
Plenty of juice and not at all dry. Well done, yes but I would say leaning
towards medium well. I surely would not want it any more well done than
that.

Paul


  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,256
Default Baa-a-a-a!!

On Apr 9, 12:00*pm, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> "Nancy2" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >d tie it, sear it
> >> till browned in a hot pan with olive oil and roast at about 325 until the
> >> internal temp was about 160.

>
> >> Always let the roast rest for 15 minutes to set the juices.

>
> >> Paul

>
> > Mein Gott, 160 deg. for lamb is way overdone. *It should always be
> > served rare or nearly rare. *Nobody wants it well done.

>
> Actually the times we made the roast I described it was quite lovely.
> Plenty of juice and not at all dry. *Well done, yes but I would say leaning
> towards medium well. *I surely would not want it any more well done than
> that.
>
> Paul


Good. I exaggerated, but you have redeemed yourself. ;-) I should
have said that I don't know anyone who likes it more well done than
rare or medium rare.

N.
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,044
Default Baa-a-a-a!!

Nancy2 wrote about lamb:

> I should have said that I don't know anyone who likes it more well done
> than rare or medium rare.


It ought to depend on the cut. Cook's Illustrated ran lamb shoulder chops
through their test kitchen and battery of tasters, and came to the
conclusion that they are much better when they're cooked medium-well rather
than medium or less. Lamb loin chops, on the other hand, are wonderful rare.

Bob

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"