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... ;^)


--
j.j. ~ mom, gamer, novice cook ~
...fish heads, fish heads, eat them up, yum!

j.j. wrote:

> 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...

I would compare it to pork. I cook lamb from time to time when I can get
it fresh and reasonably priced. It's not something you want to overcook,
so it takes to grilling rather well in the summer. I'd say a nice piece
of lamb is a lot like a nice pork tenderloin. (Which also means that if
you overcook it and dry it out you're looking at shoe leather with the
added bonus of that infamous gamey taste)


Dawn

j.j. wrote:
>
> I've
> only had lamb once -- a rather gamey tasting leg of lamb at a friend's
> house when I was a kid.

I prefer NZ and AU lamb over US lamb specifically because it has a
stronger taste. To each his own. I even like goat, which is like
lamb but stronger still. Goat, the *other* red meat.

> 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?

Lamb is a red meat, so it is not greatly different in appearance from
beef of venison. Compared to beef the muscle fibers are smaller, so
when you cut it the grain is finer. Unfortunately this doesn't say
anything either way about tough vs tender. So to the touch it will
be mcuh like beef.

The fat is less marbled most of the time, but there is enough variation
that's not guaranteed to be noticable in any one cut. But in larger
cuts the lamb fat tends to bead along lines more than in beef. So
you can expect parts of a cut to be leaner than similar small sized
parts of beef.

"j.j." wrote:

> 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... ;^)

Blood clot? I properly cooked lamb loin chop (rare to medium rare) should
have the same texture as a nice piece of beef steak. Rack of lamb is even
better than chops. Leg of lamb is the same texture as beef. Shoulder chops
tend to be a little tougher.

"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

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:45:40 GMT, (j.j.)
wrote:

>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... ;^)


I can't imagine any treatment that would make a rack of lamb resemble
a blood clot. The rack is a rib roast.

The rib-eye is tender red meat, best very rare IMHO.

A leg of lamb is also tender meat best roasted rare. Boned and
butterflied, it can be grilled on an outdoor grill, which results in
widely different degrees of doneness, because of the uneven thickness.
Great when you have people who all want different doneness.

The shank is marvelous braised slowly in its own juice, surrounded by
many cloves of garlic.

There is also a big difference between baby lamb, spring lamb, and
winter lamb. The darkness of the meat and strength of flavor
(gaminess) increases through the year.





Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a

"WooWooism lives" Anon grafitto on the base of the Cuttyhunk breakwater light

>I would compare it to pork. I cook lamb from time to time when I can get
>it fresh and reasonably priced.

Well, no, it's not at all like The Other White Meat, and particularly not like
pork tenderloin.

It's more flavorful than beef, which it resembles in color and texture; it is
really closer to venison than beef is (although not gamey, like mutton) and
generally more tender and fine-grained than what the equivalent cuts of beef
would be.

The description "blood clot" doesn't resonate much, with respect to lamb.

I had it five nights ago, at the restaurant in the Little Rock Holiday Inn that
bills itself "Camp David" (looking for the politico/Clinton crony trade). They
do a very good job on it for $19. Five or six miniature lamb chops, grilled
and served with a cherry sauce, asparagus, and a baked potato (for which they
allowed our preferred substitution of garlic mashed). I haven't had many
better meals anywhere, although the quality of roll in the bread basket could
use some work.

When I make it (my son loves lamb), I generally grill it, with a drizzle of
lemon juice, garlic, rosemary, and black pepper. The cheaper chops can be had
for under $3/pound at Safeway.

Neil

j.j. > wrote:
> 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... ;^)

Perhaps it depends on the cut of meat and how its prepared. I like
lamb chops, the shoulder blade kind. I broil the lamb chops. They
come out with a very similiar texture to prime rib, except the meat
near the bone which is kind of chewy.