On Apr 28, 12:51�pm, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:39:46 -0500, "jmcquown"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Sheldon wrote:
> >> On Apr 27, 2:22?am, Say Serene Like You Mean It
> >> > wrote:
> >>> Say Serene Like You Mean It wrote:
>
> >>>> There's a chuck roast in the pressure cooker. I'm a little nervous,
> >>>> but day-um, does that thing smell good. I'll post the recipe if it
> >>>> comes out yummy.
>
> >>>> I've never pressure-cooked meat before. It was falling-apart tender.
>
> >> That's what folks always claim whenever they've cooked pot roast to
> >> death, as if they actually intended to make Alpo. *Falling apart means
> >> way over done... that's not cooking, that's pressure processing gone
> >> awry. * Whenever a pot roast can't be sliced as cleanly as oven
> >> roasted it's over done/ruined. *Had that been cooked in a regular pot
> >> it could have been tested with a fork for degree of doneness... and
> >> the veggies wouldn't have been the consistancy of Beechnut.
>
> >> Sheldon
>
> >I don't agree. *Chuck roast isn't like roast beef such as you'd find at a
> >carving station or thinly sliced for sandwiches. *Chuck roast is "stringy",
> >for lack of a better word, and you should be easily able to cut your serving
> >into pieces with a fork.
>
> IMO, the stringier the better - which means beginning with a "7" bone
> where the bone is as big as possible. *The smaller the 7 bone (right
> down to just cartilage), the more tender the chuck roast will be. *I
> don't want it "tender" and I don't want to slice a chuck roast across
> the grain as if it was an over cooked steak. *I want a pot roast I can
> break apart in big hunks with a fork. *YUM!

That's what folks always claim whenever they've cooked pot roast to
death.

Sheldon