Peter Aitken wrote:
> Without defending anyone who acts like a jerk, there are two sides to this
> question. When I go to a friend's for dinner, one of the pleasures is trying
> someone else's cooking. I want to try things they way they cook them, both
> out of respect for their culinary skills and to open my own taste to new
> experiences. Likewise when I have guests I expect them to eat my cooking,
> not their cooking as executed by me. When you are a guest you should take
> what's offered and not expect the host to cater to your person whims
> (allergies and religious prohibitions etc. aside of course).
>
> Of course when the host asks you how you like your steak cooked you shuld
> get it that way without a lecture.

LOL - I should have been more specific about inviting people over and
behaving like a jerk... Some of my tastes - like rare steak, salted
watermelon and ketchup on scrambled eggs - are just that, my tastes.
If I were to offer to cook steak or scrambled eggs for someone, and
only cook the steak rare, smother the scrambled eggs in ketchup before
serving, and salt the watermelon for them...well, to me that's
inflicting my tastes on them. If I were to add a lecture to that -
"This is the *only* way to eat (fill in the blank)", I would not only
be acting like a jerk, but an insufferable one at that.

I agree with you, part of the fun of cooking for someone is to
show-case my cooking, not necessarily my preferences in condiments.
Ditto with being a guest - I want to enjoy their recipes.

I also agree that hosts should not be expected to cater to a guest's
every particular food whim.

Lisa Ann

>
> --
> Peter Aitken
> Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

djs0302 wrote:
> JimLane wrote:
> it chaps me a bit to see
>
>>someone getting really good steak and then wanting it shoe leather
>>tough. But I would have cooked it that way, then made a mental note to
>>only invite them for burgers or get an inferior grade of meat for their
>>next steak.
>>
>>Wren you have thinner cuts, it is easy to do, but the char grill a
>>two-inch thick steak to done on the inside usually means a cremated
>>exterior.
>>
>>
>>jim
>
>
> The key to cooking a steak well done is to first make sure it's a good
> steak and well marbled. The second is not to cook it at a too high
> temperature. High heat is fine for searing the outside of the steak
> but you need to reduce the heat to low if you want the inside to cook
> without burning up the outside.
>


Fortunately, I won't have to do that, unless some new addition to the
group eats them that way. I haven't run into an eater of well done
steaks in more than 30 years. Medium? Yes, but not well done.


jim

vega wrote:
> I can not stand it when someone is invited over for dinner or brunch
> or whatever and replies with, "What are you making?"
>
> Just say, "I would love to come, but just so you know, I'm alergic to
> peanuts" or what ever.
>
> I DO want to know if there is a type of food you can't eat. The reason
> you can't eat it is unimportant to me. I will avoid serving it or
> cooking with it's biproducts if needed. Once the person excepts the
> invite I always ask if there is anything I need to avoid serving them.
> ALWAYS. I want to enjoy my time with them Not kill them or insult
> their belief system.

Very sage advice. I was taught at a young age not to ask what is being
served. I do appreciate someone telling me they have a dietary problem
so it can be avoided. When I have a chili party, I always make a pot of
mild with a chili sauce side that can be added to suit your heat
tolerance. True, heated up that way, it won't be quite the same as being
cooked to that level, but I've not had any complaints.

When there are enough coming, I make two or three heat levels of the
same chili. They can mix to their pleasure.


jim

"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
...
> In article <iRLUe.6892$mH.6015@fed1read07>, "Nexis" >
> wrote:
> (snip)
>> Carol, I had to laugh when I read this.... On Tuesday, the night
>> before I left MN to come home, we all went to dinner at a place in
>> Woodbury called Chickadee Cottage. My brother Mike ordered the steak
>> and then poured a layer of A-1 over the entire top of it. I was
>> laughing, and asked him if he ever considered tasting the steak
>> before he did that. He cut a piece from the bottom where there was no
>> sauce and said "Hey! That's pretty darn good!" Ah well, he's a nut.
>> ;-) Me, I sometimes marinade with A-1 and a good vinaigrette (mixed
>> 50/50) before grilling, but other than that, I rarely use steak sauce
>> these days. When I was a kid, though, I loved to mix Worcestershire
>> and ketchup and dip steak in that...but that was when my dad decided
>> how the meat was cooked (well done) and it needed that sauce IMO.
>
>> kimberly
> How'd you like the Chickadee Cottage? The Church Women in Exile had
> lunch there once a long time ago -- believe we were in a room that had
> hats we could wear. Re steak sauce: I like the Lea & Perrins but
> haven't found it in a couple years. I still have a bottle that Sheryl
> graciously sent me from "out east."
> --
> -Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> Several notes since 8/18/05,
> including the Blue Ribbon Brownie Recipe and a sad note added
> this evening, 8/27/05.

We really enjoyed it. It is rare to find a place that does an extensive menu
and still does it well. Everything we had was good, with the exception of my
nephews burger, which I could have drawn portraits with (it was charcoal,
you see), but that was his fault for ordering it well done without knowing
what that meant. The steaks were thick, evenly so, and juicy. The best
thing, though, was the tomato bisque, which they said was their signature
soup. It was outrageously good, and I would have loved to have brought some
home with me.
Our room had bookshelves, full of books, which was kinda cool. And I loved
the tea. I had the house blend (Yukon) and a Darjeeling. The teapots are
gorgeous and the tea cozy a nice touch. My sister in law tells me they do
tea parties there as well, which I think it quite neat.
All in all, a good experience. Of course, it didn't hurt that it was filled
with family that I don't see nearly enough!

kimberly

Mark D wrote:

> When I lived in Sheboygan Wisc. years ago, many of the german folk who
> lived there used to buy pure 100% ground sirloin, and it was eaten raw,
> spread onto bread, topped wth a nice slice of raw Onion, and some salt,
> and pepper. Mark
>
We eat kibby raw. It is twice ground sirloin with spices usually served
in pita bread with a little drizzle of olive oil.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> > > All meats get tough when over-cooked, and all are more tender when
> > > less-cooked, and all taste raw when they are raw.
> >
> > That's not true. Most cuts become more tender when cooked-more... I
> > suppose braise/pot roast/Q is not something you know about.
>
> Braising is a style of cooking that is geared towards tenderizing

Yes, that's what I said.

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
> > Sheldon wrote:
> >
> > > > All meats get tough when over-cooked, and all are more tender when
> > > > less-cooked, and all taste raw when they are raw.
> > >
> > > That's not true. Most cuts become more tender when cooked-more... I
> > > suppose braise/pot roast/Q is not something you know about.
> >
> > Braising is a style of cooking that is geared towards tenderizing
>
> Yes, that's what I said.
>

In response to a thread on grilling.

>
> Good for him, I guess. Be that as it may, what's wrong with a little
> ketchup on a steak, as opposed to some other condiment such as A1 or
> worchestershire sauce.

I like A1 ... on my baked potato and/or roll.

There is nothing wrong with condiments even on a good piece of steak.
Many a good restaurant will serve horseradish sauce with prime rib.
What is wrong if someone likes A1 or catsup instead ? (he says, donning
his nomex suite.)

The person who is serving a steak to someone else should serve it as
ordered. After all, ther person ordering it will be eating it, not the
server or cook. The guest will probably be a bit happier if served what
they want, and the cow will most certainly not care one bit.

Dean G.

On 12 Sep 2005 07:11:40 -0700, "Dean G." > wrote:

>>
>> Good for him, I guess. Be that as it may, what's wrong with a little
>> ketchup on a steak, as opposed to some other condiment such as A1 or
>> worchestershire sauce.
>
>I like A1 ... on my baked potato and/or roll.
>
>There is nothing wrong with condiments even on a good piece of steak.
>Many a good restaurant will serve horseradish sauce with prime rib.
>What is wrong if someone likes A1 or catsup instead ? (he says, donning
>his nomex suite.)
>
>The person who is serving a steak to someone else should serve it as
>ordered. After all, ther person ordering it will be eating it, not the
>server or cook. The guest will probably be a bit happier if served what
>they want, and the cow will most certainly not care one bit.
>
>Dean G.
The cow in question is the beef and not the guest right?


Just kidding!

SPOONS wrote:
>
> How do you like your steaks cooked? I like them well done with just a hint
> of pink. I do not like to see a puddle of juices (blood) in my plate & I do
> not like to see red in the middle of my steak, like you would in a medium
> cooked steak. Ok now with that said the other night I went to someone's
> house for the first time for dinner and they served steak. So he asked
> everyone how do you want your steaks cooked & I said I wanted mine well done
> & hint of pink. OH BOY!!! he starts telling me that's not the way you eat
> steak, you're ruining a good steak I should just give you a peice of
> leather!!! blah blah blah he went on for 30 minutes. Oh yeah he likes his
> steak medium, which I've heard that most people like there steaks cooked
> medium but hey everyone has the right the eat steak the way they want it
> right???

Well, you're both wrong! ;-) ;-)

I like mine "Pittsburgh rare" which is charred on the outside
and very rare in the middle (mostly pink, just barely warm).
Of course it depends on the kind of steak you're cooking.
I only do the best steaks this way - Delmonico and Porterhouse.

Lesser steaks I would eat medium.

> He was grilling the steaks & he kept slicing mine to see if it was well
> done. Anyway after he mangeled my steak he gives me the steak and I can see
> that this is not well done, it was very red in the inside (medium
> rare).....I sliced a corner peice that looked well done & I left the rest of
> it in another plate, I figure he can eat it later since he didn't cook that
> steak for me.

I'm sorry you didn't get your steak done the way you like it.
However I can sort of relate to the way he felt about it.
If I had bought the steaks and was the person cooking them
I would find it very difficult to "mutilate" one by cooking
it well-done - or even medium. I guess that's why I don't
cook steaks for guests. ;-) (Actually it's because I can't
afford to buy steak. ;-))

Kate

~patches~ wrote:

> Oh and while we on on the topic of steaks, lets talk steak sauce. I
> want Heinz 57 not HP not a store brand not the restaurant's choice, I
> want Heinz 57 period. I use very little steak sauce but I'm picky about
> what I want.

Well, with a good steak I prefer nothing at all. Not even
salt and pepper. That's with a Delmonico or Porterhouse.
With lesser steaks I would probably use some sort of sauce
but I wouldn't care which. In fact, if it were available
I would used Thai Sweet Chilli Sauce.

Kate

Stan Horwitz wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > (Denise in NH) wrote:
> >
> > > I like my beef well done. Anything less done tastes like the remnant
> > > flavor of having had a nosebleed. I hate the flavor of blood. I went
> > > to a wedding last week where all of the beef was solid blood red, as if
> > > it hadn't been cooked at all, not even a tiny bit brown on the edges. I
> > > assumed that my meal was going to be just potatoes and steamed veggies,
> > > but then, the waitresses brought some chicken parmesan to the tables
> > > too.
> >
> >
> > And how did you request that the chicken be cooked? Rare, medium or
> > well done?
> >
> > All meats get tough when over-cooked, and all are more tender when
> > less-cooked, and all taste raw when they are raw. In my experience in
> > the US, it's only beef where you commonly get to choose the degree of
> > cooking.
>
> That's a good point. I think the reason people do not get to order fowl
> cooked rare or medium rare is because of health concerns, but I may be
> wrong about that.

Well, for me it's not health concerns. Rare poultry is just
disgusting. Of course I don't want it over-cooked either but
I like it well-done and about to fall off the bone. Breast
meat can be a little less well-done but has to be cooked through
with no pink and the texture has to have changed from the raw
or semi-raw texture to a cooked texture. That's why I hate
chicken that's undercooked, it's the texture. Plus it's just
not right to see blood in poultry. The only meat where I don't
mind blood it beef, maybe lamb in certain circumstances. Pork
and poultry should never be eve the slightest bit bloody.
(Of course the pork thing comes from when I was growing up and
people always cooked pork well due to the possibility of trichinosis.
I understand that's not a concern nowadays and, in any case,
is not the reason I like it well-done. It's due to having grown
up not ever having rare pork.)

Kate

Sheldon wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
> > "Sheldon" > wrote
> > >
> > > Dan Abel wrote:
> >
> > >>In my experience in
> > >> the US, it's only beef where you commonly get to choose the degree of
> > >> cooking.
> > >
> > > In most parts of the world tender beef steak is not on menus because
> > > it's unavailable... in fact in most parts of the world, except canned,
> > > beef is unavailable. And throuhgout the US restaurants are not
> > > permitted to serve ground beef rare, it must be fully cooked through.
> >
> > Once the laughter subsided and business went on as usual ...
> >
> > I can get a rare burger at any place that has burgers on the menu,
> > not fast food type of places.
>
> I'm sure they're not actually rare... I've ordered rare burgers
> throughout the US including Jersey, what they serve when asked for rare
> is not even quite medium, it's slightly pink in the center (more
> towards med-well). Ground beef in US restaurants needs to be cooked to
> a minimal internal temperature of 140=BAF (which is not rare) and to
> play safe they go closer to the high side which is 160=BAF...
> restaurants are not going to risk a stiff fine from the Health Dept or
> being padlocked. A rare burger means barely warm in the center which
> is essentially raw... pink is not rare.

Michigan law requires a notice on the menu indicating that undercooked
foods may cause illness. Many restaurants will serve a genuinely rare
burger, notably the now-famous Sidetrack in Ypsilanti.

Cindy Hamilton

"SPOONS" > wrote in message
...
> How do you like your steaks cooked? I like them well done with just a hint of
> pink. I do not like to see a puddle of juices (blood) in my plate & I do not
> like to see red in the middle of my steak, like you would in a medium cooked
> steak. Ok now with that said the other night I went to someone's house for
> the first time for dinner and they served steak. So he asked everyone how do
> you want your steaks cooked & I said I wanted mine well done & hint of pink.
> OH BOY!!! he starts telling me that's not the way you eat steak, you're
> ruining a good steak I should just give you a peice of leather!!! blah blah
> blah he went on for 30 minutes. Oh yeah he likes his steak medium, which I've
> heard that most people like there steaks cooked medium but hey everyone has
> the right the eat steak the way they want it right???
>
> He was grilling the steaks & he kept slicing mine to see if it was well done.
> Anyway after he mangeled my steak he gives me the steak and I can see that
> this is not well done, it was very red in the inside (medium rare).....I
> sliced a corner peice that looked well done & I left the rest of it in another
> plate, I figure he can eat it later since he didn't cook that steak for me.
>
> Take care,
> SPOONS

How rude! - I could understand a suggestion for Medium but never a berating of
a guest for their taste. Someone should give him a book on etiquette. BTW
cutting a steak is a no no. At Christmas or his birthday give him an instant
read thermometer. look here :
http://www.askthemeatman.com/steaks_...dated_9300.htm

Many people think a piece of cow should go right from the grill to the plate -
Steaks like other meat need to rest a little before serving or you'll get the
buddle of blood.

Just plug into the back of your mind that he's a PUTZ.

Dimitri

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:11:47 GMT, "Dimitri" >
wrote:

>
>"SPOONS" > wrote in message
...
>> How do you like your steaks cooked? I like them well done with just a hint of
>> pink. I do not like to see a puddle of juices (blood) in my plate & I do not
>> like to see red in the middle of my steak, like you would in a medium cooked
>> steak. Ok now with that said the other night I went to someone's house for
>> the first time for dinner and they served steak. So he asked everyone how do
>> you want your steaks cooked & I said I wanted mine well done & hint of pink.
>> OH BOY!!! he starts telling me that's not the way you eat steak, you're
>> ruining a good steak I should just give you a peice of leather!!! blah blah
>> blah he went on for 30 minutes. Oh yeah he likes his steak medium, which I've
>> heard that most people like there steaks cooked medium but hey everyone has
>> the right the eat steak the way they want it right???
>>
>> He was grilling the steaks & he kept slicing mine to see if it was well done.
>> Anyway after he mangeled my steak he gives me the steak and I can see that
>> this is not well done, it was very red in the inside (medium rare).....I
>> sliced a corner peice that looked well done & I left the rest of it in another
>> plate, I figure he can eat it later since he didn't cook that steak for me.
>>
>> Take care,
>> SPOONS
>

Face it. The guy did NOT KNOW wtf he was doing.

Kate Connally wrote:
> SPOONS wrote:
> >
> > How do you like your steaks cooked? I like them well done with just a hint
> > of pink. I do not like to see a puddle of juices (blood) in my plate & I do
> > not like to see red in the middle of my steak, like you would in a medium
> > cooked steak. Ok now with that said the other night I went to someone's
> > house for the first time for dinner and they served steak. So he asked
> > everyone how do you want your steaks cooked & I said I wanted mine well done
> > & hint of pink. OH BOY!!! he starts telling me that's not the way you eat
> > steak, you're ruining a good steak I should just give you a peice of
> > leather!!! blah blah blah he went on for 30 minutes. Oh yeah he likes his
> > steak medium, which I've heard that most people like there steaks cooked
> > medium but hey everyone has the right the eat steak the way they want it
> > right???
>
> Well, you're both wrong! ;-) ;-)
>
> I like mine "Pittsburgh rare" which is charred on the outside
> and very rare in the middle (mostly pink).

Pink ain't very rare, ain't even regular rare, ain't even medium rare,
pink is medium, medium heading for medium-well.

Sheldon

Kate Connally wrote:

> I like mine "Pittsburgh rare" which is charred on the outside
> and very rare in the middle (mostly pink, just barely warm).
> Of course it depends on the kind of steak you're cooking.
> I only do the best steaks this way - Delmonico and Porterhouse.

Pittsburgh rare is charred on the outside and cold and red on the
inside, essentially raw. Your steak as described is medium.

Pastorio

Kate Connally wrote:

> Well, for me it's not health concerns. Rare poultry is just
> disgusting. Of course I don't want it over-cooked either but
> I like it well-done and about to fall off the bone. Breast
> meat can be a little less well-done but has to be cooked through
> with no pink and the texture has to have changed from the raw
> or semi-raw texture to a cooked texture. That's why I hate
> chicken that's undercooked, it's the texture. Plus it's just
> not right to see blood in poultry.

Right and wrong are meaningless terms in the kitchen. Here's why you
will increasingly see blood in poultry:
<http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Bloody-chik.html>

> The only meat where I don't
> mind blood it beef, maybe lamb in certain circumstances. Pork
> and poultry should never be eve the slightest bit bloody.
> (Of course the pork thing comes from when I was growing up and
> people always cooked pork well due to the possibility of trichinosis.
> I understand that's not a concern nowadays and, in any case,
> is not the reason I like it well-done. It's due to having grown
> up not ever having rare pork.)

"Rare" is a technical term. You misuse it.

Pastorio

One time on Usenet, "Bob (this one)" > said:

<snip>

> Here's why you will increasingly see blood in poultry:
> <http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Bloody-chik.html>

How interesting! Miguel got half of a barbecued chicken at the
Fair last Friday, and it looked a lot like the second image on
this page...

--
Jani in WA (S'mee)
~ mom, VidGamer, novice cook, dieter ~

I just had a beautiful rib roast, a virtual slab! of meat
sliced from it, done to perfection, medium rare, 130
or thereabouts. Of course I couldn't eat even a
1/4 of it, but it will be lunch/dinner for a few days to come.

Anyway, completely unaware of this discussion, ron
said you should take a picture of this, and when you
order prime rib in a restaurant, show it to the chef and
say, just like this. No need to describe pink or red or
whatever. Funny. It was just perfect.

nancy

One time on Usenet, "Nancy Young" > said:

> I just had a beautiful rib roast, a virtual slab! of meat
> sliced from it, done to perfection, medium rare, 130
> or thereabouts. Of course I couldn't eat even a
> 1/4 of it, but it will be lunch/dinner for a few days to come.

Sounds wonderful!

> Anyway, completely unaware of this discussion, ron
> said you should take a picture of this, and when you
> order prime rib in a restaurant, show it to the chef and
> say, just like this. No need to describe pink or red or
> whatever. Funny. It was just perfect.

Hmmm, that's not such a bad idea, unless it would offend the
chef...

--
Jani in WA (S'mee)
~ mom, VidGamer, novice cook, dieter ~

"Bob (this one)" wrote:

> Kate Connally wrote:
>
> > I like mine "Pittsburgh rare" which is charred on the outside
> > and very rare in the middle (mostly pink, just barely warm).
> > Of course it depends on the kind of steak you're cooking.
> > I only do the best steaks this way - Delmonico and Porterhouse.
>
> Pittsburgh rare is charred on the outside and cold and red on the
> inside, essentially raw.

That sounds perfect for me.

"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> Kate Connally wrote:
>
> > I like mine "Pittsburgh rare" which is charred on the outside
> > and very rare in the middle (mostly pink, just barely warm).
> > Of course it depends on the kind of steak you're cooking.
> > I only do the best steaks this way - Delmonico and Porterhouse.
>
> Pittsburgh rare is charred on the outside and cold and red on the
> inside, essentially raw. Your steak as described is medium.
>
> Pastorio

Well, maybe I should have said red on the inside, but it should
not be cold, but just warm.

Kate

"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> Kate Connally wrote:
>
> > Well, for me it's not health concerns. Rare poultry is just
> > disgusting. Of course I don't want it over-cooked either but
> > I like it well-done and about to fall off the bone. Breast
> > meat can be a little less well-done but has to be cooked through
> > with no pink and the texture has to have changed from the raw
> > or semi-raw texture to a cooked texture. That's why I hate
> > chicken that's undercooked, it's the texture. Plus it's just
> > not right to see blood in poultry.
>
> Right and wrong are meaningless terms in the kitchen. Here's why you
> will increasingly see blood in poultry:
> <http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Bloody-chik.html>

I don't buy it. I've been cooking chicken for over 40 years
and when I cook it at home there is never any "blood" or whatever
near the bone. Maybe it's safe to eat when you can see the
"blood" as described in the article you quoted above but that's
not the issue, as far as I am concerned. It may be "done" but it's
not done enough for me.

> > The only meat where I don't
> > mind blood it beef, maybe lamb in certain circumstances. Pork
> > and poultry should never be eve the slightest bit bloody.
> > (Of course the pork thing comes from when I was growing up and
> > people always cooked pork well due to the possibility of trichinosis.
> > I understand that's not a concern nowadays and, in any case,
> > is not the reason I like it well-done. It's due to having grown
> > up not ever having rare pork.)
>
> "Rare" is a technical term. You misuse it.

How so? Rare is when the meat is pink or red and bloody, is
it not?

Kate

Kate Connally wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
>>Kate Connally wrote:
>>
>>>I like mine "Pittsburgh rare" which is charred on the outside
>>>and very rare in the middle (mostly pink, just barely warm).
>>>Of course it depends on the kind of steak you're cooking.
>>>I only do the best steaks this way - Delmonico and Porterhouse.
>>
>>Pittsburgh rare is charred on the outside and cold and red on the
>>inside, essentially raw. Your steak as described is medium.
>>
>>Pastorio
>
> Well, maybe I should have said red on the inside, but it should
> not be cold, but just warm.

Kate, that's maybe how you like it, and that's medium-rare. And it's
different than what you say above.

The actual definition of a Pittsburgh steak is raw, cold red center with
a thin layer of cooked meat on the outsides. Seared or charred outside
and cold red center.

Pastorio

Kate Connally wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
>>Kate Connally wrote:
>>
>>>Well, for me it's not health concerns. Rare poultry is just
>>>disgusting. Of course I don't want it over-cooked either but
>>>I like it well-done and about to fall off the bone.

This would be more than 180° and would be much more dry than the
currently suggested 165° in the thigh.

>>>Breast
>>>meat can be a little less well-done but has to be cooked through
>>>with no pink and the texture has to have changed from the raw
>>>or semi-raw texture to a cooked texture. That's why I hate
>>>chicken that's undercooked, it's the texture. Plus it's just
>>>not right to see blood in poultry.
>>
>>Right and wrong are meaningless terms in the kitchen. Here's why you
>>will increasingly see blood in poultry:
>><http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Bloody-chik.html>
>
> I don't buy it.

You don't buy what? The biology? The poultry-raising techniques? The
fact that immature bones are porous? That deep-chilling forces heme
through the bone? Those are facts.

> I've been cooking chicken for over 40 years
> and when I cook it at home there is never any "blood" or whatever
> near the bone.

Kate, chickens used to be killed at 12 weeks and they were mature at
that age. Now they're killed at 6 weeks because they grow faster - and
they're not mature; bones are not fully calcified. The science behind it
was spelled out on the page I cited. Go argue with them.

But understand that in the foodservice community, it's considered a
serious problem. It's also why store-bought rotisserie chicken is so
often dry. They cook it to the point where the darkness at the bone is
minimized. The way they do that is to cook it to more than 180°F in the
breast, sometimes all the way to 195°. That means dry chicken.

> Maybe it's safe to eat when you can see the
> "blood" as described in the article you quoted above but that's
> not the issue, as far as I am concerned. It may be "done" but it's
> not done enough for me.

And that's exactly what they said on that page.

>>>The only meat where I don't
>>>mind blood it beef, maybe lamb in certain circumstances. Pork
>>>and poultry should never be eve the slightest bit bloody.
>>>(Of course the pork thing comes from when I was growing up and
>>>people always cooked pork well due to the possibility of trichinosis.
>>>I understand that's not a concern nowadays and, in any case,
>>>is not the reason I like it well-done. It's due to having grown
>>>up not ever having rare pork.)
>>
>>"Rare" is a technical term. You misuse it.
>
> How so? Rare is when the meat is pink or red and bloody, is
> it not?

No. Pink and red define different degrees of doneness just by themselves.

It's been defined at least twice in technical terms with temperatures
and physical characteristics given in this thread alone. It's more exact
than that. Go upthread and see. These descriptions are technical terms
with very specific meanings.

Pastorio

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 19:55:18 -0400, I needed a babel fish to
understand ~patches~ > :

>Oh and while we on on the topic of steaks, lets talk steak sauce. I
>want Heinz 57 not HP not a store brand not the restaurant's choice, I
>want Heinz 57 period. I use very little steak sauce but I'm picky about
>what I want.

I used to be a 57 boy myself.. as time went on... A-1 and A-1 Bold...
then I'm at the stage of: No sauce here....
I use Montreal Steak Seasoning (from CostCo). Cook it up Medium....
and just as I pull it off the grill I put a pat of garlic butter (make
it myself with fresh crushed garlic) on each steak.
The only sauce I get is the juices in the plate where the steaks were
resting.
----------------------------------------
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke

"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> Kate Connally wrote:
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> >>Kate Connally wrote:
> >>
> >>>I like mine "Pittsburgh rare" which is charred on the outside
> >>>and very rare in the middle (mostly pink, just barely warm).
> >>>Of course it depends on the kind of steak you're cooking.
> >>>I only do the best steaks this way - Delmonico and Porterhouse.
> >>
> >>Pittsburgh rare is charred on the outside and cold and red on the
> >>inside, essentially raw. Your steak as described is medium.
> >>
> >>Pastorio
> >
> > Well, maybe I should have said red on the inside, but it should
> > not be cold, but just warm.
>
> Kate, that's maybe how you like it, and that's medium-rare. And it's
> different than what you say above.

No it's not different that what I said above. Our terminology
just differs. And it is definitely not medium rare the way I
like it. The way I like it is rare - Pittsburgh rare!

> The actual definition of a Pittsburgh steak is raw, cold red center with
> a thin layer of cooked meat on the outsides. Seared or charred outside
> and cold red center.

Uh, whose definition is that, pray tell?

I'm *from* Pittsburgh! I *know* what Pittsburgh rare is!
I've had it many times in my life. It's never been *cold* in
the middle, it's always been just slightly warm. Charred on
the outside with less than 1/4 inch cooked meat around
the outside, the rest red/pink, bloody, and slightly warm!

And as far as the definition of rare - every source I've consulted
claimed the rare was cooked to an internal temperature of somewhere
in the 120-125 degree Fahrenheit range. That is warm, by most of
the world's definition.

Kate

"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> Kate Connally wrote:
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> >>Kate Connally wrote:
> >>
> >>>Well, for me it's not health concerns. Rare poultry is just
> >>>disgusting. Of course I don't want it over-cooked either but
> >>>I like it well-done and about to fall off the bone.
>
> This would be more than 180° and would be much more dry than the
> currently suggested 165° in the thigh.

Well, I don't take the internal temperature of the meat I cook.
All I know is that it is well done, no red or pink near the bone,
and it is *not* dry!

> >>>Breast
> >>>meat can be a little less well-done but has to be cooked through
> >>>with no pink and the texture has to have changed from the raw
> >>>or semi-raw texture to a cooked texture. That's why I hate
> >>>chicken that's undercooked, it's the texture. Plus it's just
> >>>not right to see blood in poultry.
> >>
> >>Right and wrong are meaningless terms in the kitchen. Here's why you
> >>will increasingly see blood in poultry:
> >><http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Bloody-chik.html>
> >
> > I don't buy it.
>
> You don't buy what? The biology? The poultry-raising techniques? The
> fact that immature bones are porous? That deep-chilling forces heme
> through the bone? Those are facts.

I don't buy the fact that properly, thoroughly, cooked chicken
will have red near the bone due to all the crap about the porous
bones, etc. Maybe it's because people are not cooking the chicken
as long as they used to that they are seeing this red stuff.

> > I've been cooking chicken for over 40 years
> > and when I cook it at home there is never any "blood" or whatever
> > near the bone.
>
> Kate, chickens used to be killed at 12 weeks and they were mature at
> that age. Now they're killed at 6 weeks because they grow faster - and
> they're not mature; bones are not fully calcified. The science behind it
> was spelled out on the page I cited.

IF that's so then why have I never encountered it in the chickens
I buy and cook? Could it somehow be that I am getting the only old
chickens around? That would be a freakish coincidence.

> Go argue with them.

Well, I'm arguing with you because you're the one who
referenced that article, so obviously it's your belief as
well as theirs.

> But understand that in the foodservice community, it's considered a
> serious problem. It's also why store-bought rotisserie chicken is so
> often dry. They cook it to the point where the darkness at the bone is
> minimized. The way they do that is to cook it to more than 180°F in the
> breast, sometimes all the way to 195°. That means dry chicken.
>
> > Maybe it's safe to eat when you can see the
> > "blood" as described in the article you quoted above but that's
> > not the issue, as far as I am concerned. It may be "done" but it's
> > not done enough for me.
>
> And that's exactly what they said on that page.
>
> >>>The only meat where I don't
> >>>mind blood it beef, maybe lamb in certain circumstances. Pork
> >>>and poultry should never be eve the slightest bit bloody.
> >>>(Of course the pork thing comes from when I was growing up and
> >>>people always cooked pork well due to the possibility of trichinosis.
> >>>I understand that's not a concern nowadays and, in any case,
> >>>is not the reason I like it well-done. It's due to having grown
> >>>up not ever having rare pork.)
> >>
> >>"Rare" is a technical term. You misuse it.
> >
> > How so? Rare is when the meat is pink or red and bloody, is
> > it not?
>
> No. Pink and red define different degrees of doneness just by themselves.

Well, excuse if I misused the term pink. I should have said
red. To me they are pretty much the same in this instance.
I'm not standing there with color swatches saying this one is
pointsettia red and this one is cherry pink, etc.

Anyway, I looked up numerous definitions of rare and none
of them disagree with me in any way whatsoever.

> It's been defined at least twice in technical terms with temperatures
> and physical characteristics given in this thread alone. It's more exact
> than that. Go upthread and see.

Uh, I don't see anything about which temperature is pink
and which is red. All I see is something about 180 degrees
and 165 degrees in regard to the relative "doneness" of
chicken.

> These descriptions are technical terms
> with very specific meanings.

Well, excuse me for not being technical in my description.
But no matter what color term I use it's still *rare* and I do
know what rare is!

Kate

Kate Connally wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
>> Kate Connally wrote:
>>
>>> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kate Connally wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I like mine "Pittsburgh rare" which is charred on the outside
>>>>> and very rare in the middle (mostly pink, just barely warm).
>>>>> Of course it depends on the kind of steak you're cooking. I
>>>>> only do the best steaks this way - Delmonico and Porterhouse.
>>>>
>>>> Pittsburgh rare is charred on the outside and cold and red on
>>>> the inside, essentially raw. Your steak as described is medium.
>>>>
>>>> Pastorio
>>>
>>> Well, maybe I should have said red on the inside, but it should
>>> not be cold, but just warm.
>>
>> Kate, that's maybe how you like it, and that's medium-rare. And
>> it's different than what you say above.
>
> No it's not different that what I said above. Our terminology just
> differs. And it is definitely not medium rare the way I like it. The
> way I like it is rare - Pittsburgh rare!
>
>> The actual definition of a Pittsburgh steak is raw, cold red center
>> with a thin layer of cooked meat on the outsides. Seared or
>> charred outside and cold red center.
>
> Uh, whose definition is that, pray tell?

French chefs cook beef to "bleu" which is the same as Pittsburgh rare.
Center temperature is no higher than 110°F or about 45°C.

"Bleu meat, cooked at the surface, but just warmed within remains
relatively unchanged -- soft to the touch like the muscle between the
thumb and forefinger when it's completely relaxed, with little or no
colored juice (some colorless fat may melt
out)." Harold McGee; "On Food and Cooking" - pages 154-155.

He characterizes 110° as "just warmed." I think of that temperature as
tepid at most, and if served food at that temperature, it would be
called cold by most people.

The texture of the meat is slack, as raw meat is. The meat faces are
seared on very hot surfaces or very close to a flame.

> I'm *from* Pittsburgh! I *know* what Pittsburgh rare is!

I used to live there. Shadyside. Liked it.

> I've had it many times in my life. It's never been *cold* in the
> middle, it's always been just slightly warm. Charred on the outside
> with less than 1/4 inch cooked meat around the outside, the rest
> red/pink, bloody, and slightly warm!
>
> And as far as the definition of rare - every source I've consulted
> claimed the rare was cooked to an internal temperature of somewhere
> in the 120-125 degree Fahrenheit range. That is warm, by most of the
> world's definition.

But that's for conventionally rare meats, anyway. Not Pittsburgh rare.
It has a different name because it's a different result.

The name comes from the steel mills. People would bring pieces of raw
beef to work and they'd drop it on the ledges of blast furnaces or mold
tops. Those surfaces run to more than 2000°F. Meat sears instantly and
if left there for more than a few seconds is charred to inedibility. So
the outsides were crusted and the centers were raw.

Here's the science behind it:
The total amount of energy available to cook radiated by a hot object is
proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature, so that a
2000°F metal surface is radiating more than 40 times as much energy as
the equivalent area of a griddle or oven surface at 500°F.

You say that 110°F is warm? Ok. It's warm.

Pastorio

SNIP

>
>The name comes from the steel mills. People would bring pieces of raw
>beef to work and they'd drop it on the ledges of blast furnaces or mold
>tops. Those surfaces run to more than 2000°F. Meat sears instantly and
>if left there for more than a few seconds is charred to inedibility. So
>the outsides were crusted and the centers were raw.
>
>Here's the science behind it:
>The total amount of energy available to cook radiated by a hot object is
>proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature, so that a
>2000°F metal surface is radiating more than 40 times as much energy as
>the equivalent area of a griddle or oven surface at 500°F.
>
>You say that 110°F is warm? Ok. It's warm.
>
>Pastorio

Now THAT is an Alton Browne kinda answer!

I love AB (in a non *** sort of way) BTW!

In article .com>,
"Dean G." > wrote:

> >
> > Good for him, I guess. Be that as it may, what's wrong with a little
> > ketchup on a steak, as opposed to some other condiment such as A1 or
> > worchestershire sauce.
>
> I like A1 ... on my baked potato and/or roll.
>
> There is nothing wrong with condiments even on a good piece of steak.
> Many a good restaurant will serve horseradish sauce with prime rib.
> What is wrong if someone likes A1 or catsup instead ? (he says, donning
> his nomex suite.)
>
> The person who is serving a steak to someone else should serve it as
> ordered. After all, ther person ordering it will be eating it, not the
> server or cook. The guest will probably be a bit happier if served what
> they want, and the cow will most certainly not care one bit.

I couldn't agree more. This debate about what condiments to serve with
steak, or serving steak unadorned seems silly. If my money is green, I
want my steak served the way I want it when I dine out. Its that simple.
I prefer my steak to be cooked to a little pink and a little ketchup on
the side, but I do sometimes opt for steak sauce.