Started By
Message

re: lamb chops/rack question

Posted on 4/2/13 at 8:35 am to
Posted by nikinik
Mid City
Member since Jan 2009
5733 posts
Posted on 4/2/13 at 8:35 am to
Medium rare for rack of lamb is 125 to 130, not 140. 140 would be on the very high side of medium rare and I wouldn't chance it. If anything, lamb is ok on the lower side vs. the higher side. I cooked mine to 125 then took it out of the over and covered it loosely with foil and let it rest for 10 minutes. It was a perfect medium rare.
Posted by NaturalBeam
Member since Sep 2007
14596 posts
Posted on 4/2/13 at 8:57 am to
quote:

Medium rare for rack of lamb is 125 to 130, not 140. 140 would be on the very high side of medium rare and I wouldn't chance it. If anything, lamb is ok on the lower side vs. the higher side. I cooked mine to 125 then took it out of the over and covered it loosely with foil and let it rest for 10 minutes. It was a perfect medium rare.
And by the time the meat rested under the foil for 10 minutes, the temp was around 140, genius.
Posted by NaturalBeam
Member since Sep 2007
14596 posts
Posted on 4/3/13 at 10:18 am to
quote:

I cooked mine to 125 then took it out of the over and covered it loosely with foil and let it rest for 10 minutes
So you didn't say the above? Or you said that after covering and resting for 10 minutes, the temp was still 125, after you had cooked it to 125?

I didn't realize that winning competitions gave you access to meat that didn't rise in temperature upon covering and resting. Where do us amateur cooks obtain this magical meat?
This post was edited on 4/3/13 at 10:20 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram