Is there a consensus on what rare, medium rare and medium is?

I've always liked my beef medium rare, which to me meant, cooked but pink. My
gentleman friend likes medium, which to him means not pink. Lately when we get
our steaks at restaurants, his medium is about as pink as I'd like it and mine
is rare, I mean bloody raw. I'd hate to think what rare looks like. Sometimes
we send it back, sometimes we just eat it, but what is the consensus of what
beef is supposed to look like or is it really subjective?

And my son who likes his steak well done has given up ordering steak, it comes
burned on the outside raw inside and takes several send backs to get it cooked.

Okay and I'll admit we don't go to high end places. But still - shouldn't a
$12 steak be cooked the way you want it?

Joelle
"The children who need love the most will always ask for it in the most
unloving ways" ~ Words of a teacher quoted by Russell Barkley~

"Joelle" > wrote in message
...
> Is there a consensus on what rare, medium rare and medium is?
>
> I've always liked my beef medium rare, which to me meant, cooked but pink.
> My
> gentleman friend likes medium, which to him means not pink. Lately when
> we get
> our steaks at restaurants, his medium is about as pink as I'd like it and
> mine
> is rare, I mean bloody raw. I'd hate to think what rare looks like.
> Sometimes
> we send it back, sometimes we just eat it, but what is the consensus of
> what
> beef is supposed to look like or is it really subjective?
>
> And my son who likes his steak well done has given up ordering steak, it
> comes
> burned on the outside raw inside and takes several send backs to get it
> cooked.
>

I do not know of any "official" rules about this, but I do know that
"medium" should certainly have a pink center. Once the pink is gone it
enters the dreaded realm of well done. Maybe when you order you should
describe how you want it - "pink in the center" - and not by the terms
"medium" etc.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Joelle wrote:
> Is there a consensus on what rare, medium rare and medium
> is?

Probably not.

>
> I've always liked my beef medium rare, which to me meant,
> cooked but pink. My gentleman friend likes medium, which
> to him means not pink. Lately when we get our steaks at
> restaurants, his medium is about as pink as I'd like it
> and mine is rare, I mean bloody raw. I'd hate to think
> what rare looks like. Sometimes we send it back,
> sometimes we just eat it, but what is the consensus of
> what beef is supposed to look like or is it really
> subjective?

You go to different places, their definitions will all be different.
>
> And my son who likes his steak well done has given up
> ordering steak, it comes burned on the outside raw inside
> and takes several send backs to get it cooked.
>
> Okay and I'll admit we don't go to high end places. But
> still - shouldn't a $12 steak be cooked the way you want
> it?
>
Back when I ate steaks in restuarants, I'd ask what *their* definition of
rare or medium rare was (I never really cared about the others). Now,
since I grill my own at home, if I get a $12 steak, it's a much better
quality and also much larger than what the restaurant was selling, and it
is always cooked exactly the way that *I* want it.

BOB

Hello there,
I work in a "Big Name" steakhouse. The kind where you pay $30.00 and up
for a steak.
First factor: The experience of the cook. Most places that I get a
steak, it is always overcooked. I put the blame on the inexperience of
the cook.
Second Factor: The size of the steak. Thicker steaks take longer to
cook. In low end restaurants, most rrestaurants that don't specialize in
steaks, usually have the "thin" kind of steak. They cook much faster. In
relation to factor #1, this amounts to overcooked steaks.

Here are the cooking temps for beef:

Rare (140°F)
Med-rare (145°F)
Medium (160°F)
Med-well (165°F)
Well (170°F)

My steakhouse also offers "very Rare" as a menu option.
There is also Black and Blue, which is burnt on the outside and raw on
the inside.
Pittsburgh also means burnt on the inside but cooked to the temp of your
liking on the inside; usually rare or med-rare.

Now for what the steak should look like at those temps:

Very ra purple raw center
Ra Cool red center
MedRa warm red center
Med: Pink on the outside, red center
Med Well: Mostly pink
Well: grey, no color

The biggest problem we have is the general ignorance of the general
public at large about how steak should be cooked.
That, coupled with factor one and two means that the general populace
thinks that a medium rare steak should be pink, because most cooks
overcook the crap out of their beef.
Medium rare should have NO pink in it whatsoever.
There also is a difference between raw and rare.
Rare=red.
Raw=purple.
I completely agree that you should get the steak the way you want it
cooked. When I eat at lower end placed and feel like a steak, I always
order it rare now, because it usually comes out medium well. I usually
eat my steaks medium rare, so at least with medium well, I still get a
little bit of color left in my meat.
Also think of the quality of the beef you get for $12. Usually choice,
which is what you get at the supermarket.
These are the different quality grades of beef:

Prime, Choice, Select, Standard, Commercial, Utility, Cutter and Canner

Prime is the best. If you have a "Big Name" steakhouse in your area, you
really owe it to yourself to splurge and go there at least once.
And I'm not talking about the Outback either.
One restaurant in my area "proudly" serves Select Beef. Ew, gross.

Seasoning of the steak also has a factor in the flavor. Most places use
too much salt. Even more places don't season their steaks at all.

Also how the steak is aged makes a huge amount of difference in how the
steak tastes.
Dry aging and wet aging are the two types.

Warning, the next bit of info may be gross and you may never want to eat
beef again:

Dry aging is the traditional process of placing an entire carcass or
wholesale cut (without covering or packaging) in a refrigerated room for
21 to 28 days at 32-34 degrees F. and 80-85% relative humidity, with an
air velocity of 0.5 to 2.5 m/sec. All three conditions, although varying
widely in commercial practice, are extremely important in the proper
postmortem aging of carcasses, as well as beef ribs and loins.

A third method, accelerated aging uses a higher holding temperature with
ultraviolet light used to retard microbial grown which would normally
occur at higher temperatures. This method, however, has not been used
commercially to a significant degree in recent years, due to the extent
that vacuum packaged products are subjected to wet aging.

Too much humidity will allow excessive microbial growth, whereas too
little will cause excessive shrinkage. Eighty-five percent relative
humidity is a happy medium in slowing microbial growth and moisture loss.

Tenderness development can be accelerated by aging at a higher
temperature; however, increased microbial growth becomes a serious
problem at higher temperatures.

Air velocity is essential because it acts as a medium for moisture
removal from the refrigerated area. Insufficient air velocity will allow
excessive moisture to condense on the product, and as a result,
off-flavors and aromas, as well as spoilage, will occur. Too high an air
velocity, on the other hand, will result in excessive surface drying,
with resulting weight and trim losses. The main disadvantage of dry
aging is the cost associated with these weight and trim losses.

Wet aging is the aging of meat in vacuum bags (usually the middle meats)
under refrigerated conditions of 32-34° F. Obviously, humidity and air
velocity are not necessary requirements for proper wet aging. Because
most beef is vacuum packaged at the site of carcass fabrication
(cutting), wet aging is the predominant method of postmortem aging today.

The aging process continues when a primal or subprimal cut has been
placed in a vacuum package. By the We the cut reaches the retail store,
at least 7-10 days have normally elapsed the following slaughter, due to
holding at packing plant for carcass chilling and fabrication, inventory
storage, shipping to the retail warehouse, and subsequent shipping to
the retail store level. Therefore, the time associated with the rapid
tenderization (7-10 days) and that associated with product movement to
the retail store are similar. However, additional aging time is
generally beneficial.

So there you have a quick primer in eating cooking and preparing of steaks.
Quality makes a huge difference in the enjoyment of your steaks.
Even a prime, dry aged steak cooked well done, at the hands of a cook
who knows what he is doing, can come out an enjoyable experience.
So, splurge on a big name steakhouse, even if you have to drive 1 or 2
hours to get to one, and write back to me and tell me how it was
compared to your usual $12 steak. I think you will find a world of
difference.

P


Joelle wrote:
> Is there a consnsus on what rare, medium rare and medium is?
>
> I've always liked my beef medium rare, which to me meant, cooked but pink. My
> gentleman friend likes medium, which to him means not pink. Lately when we get
> our steaks at restaurants, his medium is about as pink as I'd like it and mine
> is rare, I mean bloody raw. I'd hate to think what rare looks like. Sometimes
> we send it back, sometimes we just eat it, but what is the consensus of what
> beef is supposed to look like or is it really subjective?
>
> And my son who likes his steak well done has given up ordering steak, it comes
> burned on the outside raw inside and takes several send backs to get it cooked.
>
> Okay and I'll admit we don't go to high end places. But still - shouldn't a
> $12 steak be cooked the way you want it?
>
> Joelle
> "The children who need love the most will always ask for it in the most
> unloving ways" ~ Words of a teacher quoted by Russell Barkley~

silentking wrote:
An excellent and massively informative post.
Just wanted to say thank you.

Joelle wrote:

> Is there a consensus on what rare, medium rare and medium is?
>
> I've always liked my beef medium rare, which to me meant, cooked but pink. My
> gentleman friend likes medium, which to him means not pink. Lately when we get
> our steaks at restaurants, his medium is about as pink as I'd like it and mine
> is rare, I mean bloody raw. I'd hate to think what rare looks like. Sometimes
> we send it back, sometimes we just eat it, but what is the consensus of what
> beef is supposed to look like or is it really subjective?

Have a look at this site. It has pictures that you may find helpful.
http://et.sdsu.edu/radair/world_wide...k_doneness.htm


> And my son who likes his steak well done has given up ordering steak, it comes
> burned on the outside raw inside and takes several send backs to get it cooked.

Why get steak for someone who likes it well done? I realize that people are
entitled to their preferences, but it makes no sense to me to take a choice cut of
meat and then cook out all the texture, taste and juices. People who like beef
well done should stick to pot roast and hamburgers.

> Okay and I'll admit we don't go to high end places. But still - shouldn't a
> $12 steak be cooked the way you want it?

BTW. You are brave to send food back to the kitchen. I have heard horror stories
about what happens to it.

"Joelle" > wrote in message
...

>
> Okay and I'll admit we don't go to high end places. But still - shouldn't
a
> $12 steak be cooked the way you want it?
>

Yes, but I think the problem is in your terminology. As noted,
it varies from place to place, but generally...

"Rare" = Cool pink/red center (i.e., it's still somewhat "bloody")
"Medium rare" = Warm pink center, actually still a bit red
"Medium = Hot center but still distinctly pink
"Medium well" = Very little pink remaining
"Well-done" = No pink; cooked through.

Anything beyond that is generally considered overdone, which
doesn't mean that you're not free to order it if that's what you like
- but you're getting to the point then where, in any place that prides
itself on cooking steak, you will likely have to ask for a "VERY well-
done" or some variant of that which tells them that you REALLY
don't want to see anything remotely pinkish in your meat.

Bob M.

http://lesleycooks.tripod.com/meattemperature.htm

http://kitchen.robbiehaf.com/CandyMeatCharts.html

"silentking" > wrote in message
>
> Here are the cooking temps for beef:
>
> Rare (140°F) Med-rare (145°F) Medium (160°F) Med-well (165°F) Well (170°F)
> >
> Now for what the steak should look like at those temps:
>
> Very ra purple raw center
> Ra Cool red center
> MedRa warm red center
> Med: Pink on the outside, red center
> Med Well: Mostly pink
> Well: grey, no color

I've never had that temperature-color correlation. I take a steak off the
grill at 120 and it is pink, not red. A rib roast I'll get to 125 and pull
it and let it rest. According to this, medium well is 165 and should be
mostly pink. To me it would be tossed to the dog next door because it is
gray. This is with a few different thermometers I use.

"silentking" > wrote in message
. com...
> Hello there,
> I work in a "Big Name" steakhouse. The kind where you pay $30.00 and up
> for a steak.
> First factor: The experience of the cook. Most places that I get a steak,
> it is always overcooked. I put the blame on the inexperience of the cook.
> Second Factor: The size of the steak. Thicker steaks take longer to cook.
> In low end restaurants, most rrestaurants that don't specialize in steaks,
> usually have the "thin" kind of steak. They cook much faster. In relation
> to factor #1, this amounts to overcooked steaks.
>
> Here are the cooking temps for beef:
>
> Rare (140°F) Med-rare (145°F) Medium (160°F) Med-well (165°F) Well (170°F)
>
> My steakhouse also offers "very Rare" as a menu option.
> There is also Black and Blue, which is burnt on the outside and raw on the
> inside.
> Pittsburgh also means burnt on the inside but cooked to the temp of your
> liking on the inside; usually rare or med-rare.
>
> Now for what the steak should look like at those temps:
>
> Very ra purple raw center
> Ra Cool red center
> MedRa warm red center
> Med: Pink on the outside, red center
> Med Well: Mostly pink
> Well: grey, no color
>
> The biggest problem we have is the general ignorance of the general public
> at large about how steak should be cooked.
> That, coupled with factor one and two means that the general populace
> thinks that a medium rare steak should be pink, because most cooks
> overcook the crap out of their beef.
> Medium rare should have NO pink in it whatsoever.
> There also is a difference between raw and rare.
> Rare=red.
> Raw=purple.
> I completely agree that you should get the steak the way you want it
> cooked. When I eat at lower end placed and feel like a steak, I always
> order it rare now, because it usually comes out medium well. I usually eat
> my steaks medium rare, so at least with medium well, I still get a little
> bit of color left in my meat.
> Also think of the quality of the beef you get for $12. Usually choice,
> which is what you get at the supermarket.
> These are the different quality grades of beef:
>
> Prime, Choice, Select, Standard, Commercial, Utility, Cutter and Canner
>
> Prime is the best. If you have a "Big Name" steakhouse in your area, you
> really owe it to yourself to splurge and go there at least once.
> And I'm not talking about the Outback either.
> One restaurant in my area "proudly" serves Select Beef. Ew, gross.
>
> Seasoning of the steak also has a factor in the flavor. Most places use
> too much salt. Even more places don't season their steaks at all.
>
> Also how the steak is aged makes a huge amount of difference in how the
> steak tastes.
> Dry aging and wet aging are the two types.
>
> Warning, the next bit of info may be gross and you may never want to eat
> beef again:
>
> Dry aging is the traditional process of placing an entire carcass or
> wholesale cut (without covering or packaging) in a refrigerated room for
> 21 to 28 days at 32-34 degrees F. and 80-85% relative humidity, with an
> air velocity of 0.5 to 2.5 m/sec. All three conditions, although varying
> widely in commercial practice, are extremely important in the proper
> postmortem aging of carcasses, as well as beef ribs and loins.
>
> A third method, accelerated aging uses a higher holding temperature with
> ultraviolet light used to retard microbial grown which would normally
> occur at higher temperatures. This method, however, has not been used
> commercially to a significant degree in recent years, due to the extent
> that vacuum packaged products are subjected to wet aging.
>
> Too much humidity will allow excessive microbial growth, whereas too
> little will cause excessive shrinkage. Eighty-five percent relative
> humidity is a happy medium in slowing microbial growth and moisture loss.
>
> Tenderness development can be accelerated by aging at a higher
> temperature; however, increased microbial growth becomes a serious problem
> at higher temperatures.
>
> Air velocity is essential because it acts as a medium for moisture removal
> from the refrigerated area. Insufficient air velocity will allow excessive
> moisture to condense on the product, and as a result, off-flavors and
> aromas, as well as spoilage, will occur. Too high an air velocity, on the
> other hand, will result in excessive surface drying, with resulting weight
> and trim losses. The main disadvantage of dry aging is the cost associated
> with these weight and trim losses.
>
> Wet aging is the aging of meat in vacuum bags (usually the middle meats)
> under refrigerated conditions of 32-34° F. Obviously, humidity and air
> velocity are not necessary requirements for proper wet aging. Because most
> beef is vacuum packaged at the site of carcass fabrication (cutting), wet
> aging is the predominant method of postmortem aging today.
>
> The aging process continues when a primal or subprimal cut has been placed
> in a vacuum package. By the We the cut reaches the retail store, at least
> 7-10 days have normally elapsed the following slaughter, due to holding at
> packing plant for carcass chilling and fabrication, inventory storage,
> shipping to the retail warehouse, and subsequent shipping to the retail
> store level. Therefore, the time associated with the rapid tenderization
> (7-10 days) and that associated with product movement to the retail store
> are similar. However, additional aging time is generally beneficial.
>
> So there you have a quick primer in eating cooking and preparing of
> steaks.
> Quality makes a huge difference in the enjoyment of your steaks.
> Even a prime, dry aged steak cooked well done, at the hands of a cook who
> knows what he is doing, can come out an enjoyable experience.
> So, splurge on a big name steakhouse, even if you have to drive 1 or 2
> hours to get to one, and write back to me and tell me how it was compared
> to your usual $12 steak. I think you will find a world of difference.
>
> P
silentking,
Wow.. VERY informative for me. I found out, according to you, that I have
been ordering my steaks wrong.. but oddly, they turn out like I wanted them,
slightly more than half of the time. I'm going to change how I order them
now.
lucy
p.s. incidentally, i notice you top posted (which I prefer actually)
I guess the posting-nazis are sleeping one off. <grins!>
lucy


> Joelle wrote:
>> Is there a consnsus on what rare, medium rare and medium is?
>>
>> I've always liked my beef medium rare, which to me meant, cooked but
>> pink. My
>> gentleman friend likes medium, which to him means not pink. Lately when
>> we get
>> our steaks at restaurants, his medium is about as pink as I'd like it and
>> mine
>> is rare, I mean bloody raw. I'd hate to think what rare looks like.
>> Sometimes
>> we send it back, sometimes we just eat it, but what is the consensus of
>> what
>> beef is supposed to look like or is it really subjective?
>>
>> And my son who likes his steak well done has given up ordering steak, it
>> comes
>> burned on the outside raw inside and takes several send backs to get it
>> cooked.
>>
>> Okay and I'll admit we don't go to high end places. But still -
>> shouldn't a
>> $12 steak be cooked the way you want it?
>>
>> Joelle
>> "The children who need love the most will always ask for it in the most
>> unloving ways" ~ Words of a teacher quoted by Russell Barkley~

In rec.food.cooking, silentking > wrote:

> Rare (140?F)
> Med-rare (145?F)
> Medium (160?F)
> Med-well (165?F)
> Well (170?F)


These temps seem VERY high to me. Also, the temps will vary depending on
lots of different factors.

Take a roast SLOWLY up to 140 in the center, and you'll NOT have rare
meat. Ther will be very little or no redness. You'll be lucky if
there's any pink left.

Personally, I take roasts out at around 120 or 125, depending on various
factors.

For steaks, the temperature is pretty much irrelevant.

In rec.food.cooking, Bob Miller > wrote:
> http://lesleycooks.tripod.com/meattemperature.htm

This site lists 160 as the ideal temp for a "medium" done Pork Roast!

I once took off a pork roast at 141 and it was dry inside. Now I cook
them to 130 and let them heat up to 138 or 140 as they rest. They are
thourougly cooked, and very juicy.

Medium-rare beef roast, 145!? Try 125 or so? Or less?


Where do these sources get these temps?

My guess is that they make allowance for the ignorant cook putting in the
thermometer off center, so they use a high temp. Do they also allow for
the thermometer to be miscalibrated by 10 degress or more? Maybe other
factors are at play, causing them to do it?

Can anybody tell me what the scoop is? Why do so many of these guides
use such excessive temps?

Does anybody know of a real guide? Does anybody here (who enjoys good
meat, cooked medium rare or so) use any of these published guides?



--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower

wrote:

>In rec.food.cooking, Bob Miller > wrote:
>> http://lesleycooks.tripod.com/meattemperature.htm
>
>This site lists 160 as the ideal temp for a "medium" done Pork Roast!
>
>I once took off a pork roast at 141 and it was dry inside. Now I cook
>them to 130 and let them heat up to 138 or 140 as they rest. They are
>thourougly cooked, and very juicy.
>
>Medium-rare beef roast, 145!? Try 125 or so? Or less?
>
>
>Where do these sources get these temps?
>
>My guess is that they make allowance for the ignorant cook putting in the
>thermometer off center, so they use a high temp. Do they also allow for
>the thermometer to be miscalibrated by 10 degress or more? Maybe other
>factors are at play, causing them to do it?
>
>Can anybody tell me what the scoop is? Why do so many of these guides
>use such excessive temps?
>
>Does anybody know of a real guide? Does anybody here (who enjoys good
>meat, cooked medium rare or so) use any of these published guides?


Consider the source. This is our old friend Chef R. W. Miller from
Marriott(?).
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral, 48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

The Cook wrote:
>
> Consider the source. This is our old friend Chef R. W.
> Miller from Marriott(?).

LOL!

Joelle wrote:
> Is there a consensus on what rare, medium rare and medium is?
>
> I've always liked my beef medium rare, which to me meant, cooked but
pink. My
> gentleman friend likes medium, which to him means not pink. Lately
when we get
> our steaks at restaurants, his medium is about as pink as I'd like it
and mine
> is rare, I mean bloody raw. I'd hate to think what rare looks like.
Sometimes
> we send it back, sometimes we just eat it, but what is the consensus
of what
> beef is supposed to look like or is it really subjective?

I would expect "medium" to be pink in the center and hot, more well
done on the outside. "Medium rare would be like Medium, only mostly
warm in the center and bloody. "Rare" would be barely cooked on the
outside.

-L.

-L. wrote:

> Joelle wrote:
>
>> Is there a consensus on what rare, medium rare and medium is?
>>
>> I've always liked my beef medium rare, which to me meant, cooked
>> but pink. My gentleman friend likes medium, which to him means
>> not pink. Lately when we get our steaks at restaurants, his
>> medium is about as pink as I'd like it and mine is rare, I mean
>> bloody raw. I'd hate to think what rare looks like. Sometimes>
>> we send it back, sometimes we just eat it, but what is the
>> consensus of what beef is supposed to look like or is it really
>> subjective?
>
> I would expect "medium" to be pink in the center and hot, more well
> done on the outside. "Medium rare would be like Medium, only
> mostly warm in the center and bloody. "Rare" would be barely cooked
> on the outside.

There are technical definitions used in food service.

Rare = more than 60% cold red center
med-rare = about 60% warm red center
med = at least half warm pink center
med-well = narrow stripe of hot pink center
well = brown throughout

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" wrote
>> Joelle wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a consensus on what rare, medium rare and medium is?
>>>

> There are technical definitions used in food service.
>
> Rare = more than 60% cold red center
> med-rare = about 60% warm red center
> med = at least half warm pink center
> med-well = narrow stripe of hot pink center
> well = brown throughout
>
> Pastorio
>

I always loved the definition of rare from older farhts than me. "Just put
it under your arm, and walk it through the kitchen."

Pam

Ed Grabau and Pam Jacoby wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" wrote
>
>>>Joelle wrote:
>>>
>>>>Is there a consensus on what rare, medium rare and medium is?
>>>>
>>There are technical definitions used in food service.
>>
>>Rare = more than 60% cold red center
>>med-rare = about 60% warm red center
>>med = at least half warm pink center
>>med-well = narrow stripe of hot pink center
>>well = brown throughout
>>
>>Pastorio
>>
> I always loved the definition of rare from older farhts than me. "Just put
> it under your arm, and walk it through the kitchen."

And you wouldn't have to add any seasoning beyond Old Spice.

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)"wrote ...
> Ed Grabau and Pam Jacoby wrote:
>
>> "Bob (this one)" wrote
>>
>>>>Joelle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Is there a consensus on what rare, medium rare and medium is?
>>>>>
>>>There are technical definitions used in food service.
>>>
>>>Rare = more than 60% cold red center
>>>med-rare = about 60% warm red center
>>>med = at least half warm pink center
>>>med-well = narrow stripe of hot pink center
>>>well = brown throughout
>>>
>>>Pastorio
>>>
>> I always loved the definition of rare from older farhts than me. "Just
>> put it under your arm, and walk it through the kitchen."
>
> And you wouldn't have to add any seasoning beyond Old Spice.
>
> Pastorio
>
Dang, I miss those fine old restaurants. The infamous "they" have plowed
under all the great ones in this town.

Pam

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:29:55 GMT, "Ed Grabau and Pam Jacoby" <pjjehg
@frontiernet.net> wrote:

>> Rare = more than 60% cold red center
>> med-rare = about 60% warm red center
>> med = at least half warm pink center
>> med-well = narrow stripe of hot pink center
>> well = brown throughout
>>
>> Pastorio
>>
>
>I always loved the definition of rare from older farhts than me. "Just put
>it under your arm, and walk it through the kitchen."
>
>Pam
>
"knock it horns off, wipe its butt, and put it on the plate"

Pan Ohco



The Earth is degenerating these days. Bribery and corruption abound.
Children no longer mind their parents, every man wants to write a
Book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching.
--Assyrian stone tablet, c. 2800 B.C.

One person's "medium" is another's "well" and yet another's "little bit rare
for me".
Here's a simplified list, based on what the customers say it's NOT <g>...

"Very-well" is not burnt, but sometimes "charred"
"Well" is not "very-well", nor is it "mid-well"
"Mid-well" is not "well" and it's not "medium" either
"Medium" is not "medium-rare", nor "medium-well"
"Medium-rare" is not "rare", but not "medium" either
"Rare" is not "blue", but not "medium-rare" either
"Blue" is not raw, at least not totally

Of course, because of carry-over cooking, a steak is going to be slightly
more done by the time it's cut than when it left the heat.

zuuum wrote:

> One person's "medium" is another's "well" and yet another's "little bit=
rare=20
> for me".

Ain't it the truth...

> Here's a simplified list, based on what the customers say it's NOT <g>.=
=2E.
>=20
> "Very-well" is not burnt, but sometimes "charred"
> "Well" is not "very-well", nor is it "mid-well"
> "Mid-well" is not "well" and it's not "medium" either
> "Medium" is not "medium-rare", nor "medium-well"
> "Medium-rare" is not "rare", but not "medium" either
> "Rare" is not "blue", but not "medium-rare" either
> "Blue" is not raw, at least not totally

<LOL> And none of these make any sense until they've been clearly=20
defined.

I loved the customer who ordered a steak "medium, but with no pink."

> Of course, because of carry-over cooking, a steak is going to be slight=
ly=20
> more done by the time it's cut than when it left the heat.

And a good restaurant cooks with that in mind. We served our steaks on=20
plates heated to 130=B0F knowing what would happen to the steaks in trans=
it.

Pastorio

In article >, "Ed Grabau and Pam
Jacoby" <pjjehg @frontiernet.net> says...
>
> "Bob (this one)"wrote ...
> > Ed Grabau and Pam Jacoby wrote:
> >
> >> "Bob (this one)" wrote
> >>
> >>>>Joelle wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Is there a consensus on what rare, medium rare and medium is?
> >>>>>
> >>>There are technical definitions used in food service.
> >>>
> >>>Rare = more than 60% cold red center
> >>>med-rare = about 60% warm red center
> >>>med = at least half warm pink center
> >>>med-well = narrow stripe of hot pink center
> >>>well = brown throughout
> >>>
> >>>Pastorio
> >>>
> >> I always loved the definition of rare from older farhts than me. "Just
> >> put it under your arm, and walk it through the kitchen."
> >
> > And you wouldn't have to add any seasoning beyond Old Spice.
> >
> > Pastorio
> >
> Dang, I miss those fine old restaurants. The infamous "they" have plowed
> under all the great ones in this town.
>
> Pam

Surprisingly the big box restaurants have a hard time sustaining
themselves in Providence. I think it's because of the sheer density of
independent restaurants.

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "silentking" > wrote in message
>>
>> Here are the cooking temps for beef:
>>
>> Rare (140°F) Med-rare (145°F) Medium (160°F) Med-well (165°F) Well
>> (170°F)
>> >
>> Now for what the steak should look like at those temps:
>>
>> Very ra purple raw center
>> Ra Cool red center
>> MedRa warm red center
>> Med: Pink on the outside, red center
>> Med Well: Mostly pink
>> Well: grey, no color
>
> I've never had that temperature-color correlation. I take a steak off the
> grill at 120 and it is pink, not red. A rib roast I'll get to 125 and
> pull it and let it rest. According to this, medium well is 165 and should
> be mostly pink. To me it would be tossed to the dog next door because it
> is gray. This is with a few different thermometers I use.

I think "how" you are cooking the meat comes into play. You get different
results depending on how you cook it.

Of course, this is just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Bret



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----