Thread: A couple of pot roast questions

Scott wrote:
> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2
> hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for
> another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to
> cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity
> where the meat is just right and tender as can be?
> Also does it matter how much liquid I add? What happens if I almost
> cover the meat with liquid as oppose to 1/4 - 1/2 of the meat. Is it the
> liquid or the steam that tenderizes the meat?

Oh yeah 1 more question, just about every recipe never mentions turning
the meat while it's simmering. Wouldn't the meat cook/tenderize more
evenly if turn while simmering?

Scott wrote:
> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2
> hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for
> another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to
> cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity
> where the meat is just right and tender as can be?
> Also does it matter how much liquid I add? What happens if I almost
> cover the meat with liquid as oppose to 1/4 - 1/2 of the meat. Is it the
> liquid or the steam that tenderizes the meat?

Oh yeah 1 more question, just about every recipe never mentions turning
the meat while it's simmering. Wouldn't the meat cook/tenderize more
evenly if turn while simmering?

Scott wrote:
> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2
> hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for
> another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to
> cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity
> where the meat is just right and tender as can be?

You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot roast. Chuck
roast benefits very well from this long, slow cooking. Practically falling
apart, fork tender when it's done (in relatively little cooking time).
Makes great gravy and veggies also cook nicely in the juices. I have no
idea what you cooked.

Jill

Scott wrote:
> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2
> hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for
> another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to
> cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity
> where the meat is just right and tender as can be?

You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot roast. Chuck
roast benefits very well from this long, slow cooking. Practically falling
apart, fork tender when it's done (in relatively little cooking time).
Makes great gravy and veggies also cook nicely in the juices. I have no
idea what you cooked.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2
>> hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for
>> another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to
>> cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity
>> where the meat is just right and tender as can be?
>
> You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot roast. Chuck
> roast benefits very well from this long, slow cooking. Practically falling
> apart, fork tender when it's done (in relatively little cooking time).
> Makes great gravy and veggies also cook nicely in the juices. I have no
> idea what you cooked.
>
> Jill
>
>

Chuck roast of course

jmcquown wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2
>> hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for
>> another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to
>> cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity
>> where the meat is just right and tender as can be?
>
> You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot roast. Chuck
> roast benefits very well from this long, slow cooking. Practically falling
> apart, fork tender when it's done (in relatively little cooking time).
> Makes great gravy and veggies also cook nicely in the juices. I have no
> idea what you cooked.
>
> Jill
>
>

Chuck roast of course

jmcquown wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2
>> hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for
>> another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to
>> cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity
>> where the meat is just right and tender as can be?
>
> You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot roast. Chuck
> roast benefits very well from this long, slow cooking. Practically falling
> apart, fork tender when it's done (in relatively little cooking time).
> Makes great gravy and veggies also cook nicely in the juices. I have no
> idea what you cooked.
>
> Jill
>
>

Wait a minute, don't the following statements contradict:
long, slow cooking
in relatively little cooking time

jmcquown wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2
>> hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for
>> another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to
>> cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity
>> where the meat is just right and tender as can be?
>
> You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot roast. Chuck
> roast benefits very well from this long, slow cooking. Practically falling
> apart, fork tender when it's done (in relatively little cooking time).
> Makes great gravy and veggies also cook nicely in the juices. I have no
> idea what you cooked.
>
> Jill
>
>

Wait a minute, don't the following statements contradict:
long, slow cooking
in relatively little cooking time

Scott wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2
>>> hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for
>>> another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow
>>> to cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of
>>> opportunity where the meat is just right and tender as can be?
>>
>> You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot
>> roast. Chuck roast benefits very well from this long, slow cooking.
>> Practically falling apart, fork tender when it's done (in relatively
>> little cooking time). Makes great gravy and veggies also cook nicely
>> in the juices. I have no idea what you cooked.
>>
>> Jill
>>
>>
>
> Wait a minute, don't the following statements contradict:
> long, slow cooking
> in relatively little cooking time

Relatively short cooking time in that you don't cook it 8 hours... 1-1/2 to
2 hours is slow cooking for a 3 lb. chuck roast

Jill

Scott wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2
>>> hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for
>>> another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow
>>> to cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of
>>> opportunity where the meat is just right and tender as can be?
>>
>> You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot
>> roast. Chuck roast benefits very well from this long, slow cooking.
>> Practically falling apart, fork tender when it's done (in relatively
>> little cooking time). Makes great gravy and veggies also cook nicely
>> in the juices. I have no idea what you cooked.
>>
>> Jill
>>
>>
>
> Wait a minute, don't the following statements contradict:
> long, slow cooking
> in relatively little cooking time

Relatively short cooking time in that you don't cook it 8 hours... 1-1/2 to
2 hours is slow cooking for a 3 lb. chuck roast

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2
>>>> hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for
>>>> another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow
>>>> to cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of
>>>> opportunity where the meat is just right and tender as can be?
>>> You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot
>>> roast. Chuck roast benefits very well from this long, slow cooking.
>>> Practically falling apart, fork tender when it's done (in relatively
>>> little cooking time). Makes great gravy and veggies also cook nicely
>>> in the juices. I have no idea what you cooked.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>>
>>>
>> Wait a minute, don't the following statements contradict:
>> long, slow cooking
>> in relatively little cooking time
>
> Relatively short cooking time in that you don't cook it 8 hours... 1-1/2 to
> 2 hours is slow cooking for a 3 lb. chuck roast
>
> Jill
>
>

OK now what would happen if I did cook it for 8 hours? Is there such a
thing as being too tender?

jmcquown wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2
>>>> hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for
>>>> another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow
>>>> to cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of
>>>> opportunity where the meat is just right and tender as can be?
>>> You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot
>>> roast. Chuck roast benefits very well from this long, slow cooking.
>>> Practically falling apart, fork tender when it's done (in relatively
>>> little cooking time). Makes great gravy and veggies also cook nicely
>>> in the juices. I have no idea what you cooked.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>>
>>>
>> Wait a minute, don't the following statements contradict:
>> long, slow cooking
>> in relatively little cooking time
>
> Relatively short cooking time in that you don't cook it 8 hours... 1-1/2 to
> 2 hours is slow cooking for a 3 lb. chuck roast
>
> Jill
>
>

OK now what would happen if I did cook it for 8 hours? Is there such a
thing as being too tender?

Scott wrote:


> OK now what would happen if I did cook it for 8 hours? Is there such
> a thing as being too tender?

What will happen is that it will begin to fall apart. That's not
necessarily a bad thing, as you can they shred it with a fork. I do
that deliberately at times. Shredded beef makes great sandwiches and
taco filling.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Scott wrote:


> OK now what would happen if I did cook it for 8 hours? Is there such
> a thing as being too tender?

What will happen is that it will begin to fall apart. That's not
necessarily a bad thing, as you can they shred it with a fork. I do
that deliberately at times. Shredded beef makes great sandwiches and
taco filling.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Scott wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it
>>>>> after 2 hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it
>>>>> simmer for another 45
>>>> You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot
>>>> roast. Chuck roast benefits very well from this long, slow
>>>> cooking. Practically falling apart, fork tender when it's done (in
>>>> relatively little cooking time). Makes great gravy and veggies
>>>> also cook nicely in the juices. I have no idea what you cooked.
>>>>
>>>> Jill
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Wait a minute, don't the following statements contradict:
>>> long, slow cooking
>>> in relatively little cooking time
>>
>> Relatively short cooking time in that you don't cook it 8 hours...
>> 1-1/2 to 2 hours is slow cooking for a 3 lb. chuck roast
>>
>> Jill
>>
>>
>
> OK now what would happen if I did cook it for 8 hours? Is there such a
> thing as being too tender?

You'd have a piece of charcoal (unless you were using a slow cooker/crock
pot).

Jill

Scott wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it
>>>>> after 2 hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it
>>>>> simmer for another 45
>>>> You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot
>>>> roast. Chuck roast benefits very well from this long, slow
>>>> cooking. Practically falling apart, fork tender when it's done (in
>>>> relatively little cooking time). Makes great gravy and veggies
>>>> also cook nicely in the juices. I have no idea what you cooked.
>>>>
>>>> Jill
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Wait a minute, don't the following statements contradict:
>>> long, slow cooking
>>> in relatively little cooking time
>>
>> Relatively short cooking time in that you don't cook it 8 hours...
>> 1-1/2 to 2 hours is slow cooking for a 3 lb. chuck roast
>>
>> Jill
>>
>>
>
> OK now what would happen if I did cook it for 8 hours? Is there such a
> thing as being too tender?

You'd have a piece of charcoal (unless you were using a slow cooker/crock
pot).

Jill

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ...
> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2 hours
> it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for another 45
> mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to cook too long,
> in other words is there a certain window of opportunity where the meat is
> just right and tender as can be?
> Also does it matter how much liquid I add? What happens if I almost cover
> the meat with liquid as oppose to 1/4 - 1/2 of the meat. Is it the liquid
> or the steam that tenderizes the meat?

Think temp... not time.

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ...
> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2 hours
> it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for another 45
> mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to cook too long,
> in other words is there a certain window of opportunity where the meat is
> just right and tender as can be?
> Also does it matter how much liquid I add? What happens if I almost cover
> the meat with liquid as oppose to 1/4 - 1/2 of the meat. Is it the liquid
> or the steam that tenderizes the meat?

Think temp... not time.

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ...
> The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2 hours
> it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for another 45
> mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to cook too long,
> in other words is there a certain window of opportunity where the meat is
> just right and tender as can be?
> Also does it matter how much liquid I add? What happens if I almost cover
> the meat with liquid as oppose to 1/4 - 1/2 of the meat. Is it the liquid
> or the steam that tenderizes the meat?


If you go too long, it can dry and start to get tough.

It is neither the liquid nor the steam that makes it tender. Tough cuts of
meat come from the harder working parts of the animal. The have more
collagen in the muscle, thus the toughness. By slowly heating the meat and
holding it at about 163 degrees, the collagen breaks down and the meat
becomes more tender. Notice how the liquid increases as it cooks? Once the
collagen is gone and the fat is gone, the meat will start to dry. Moisture
slows the process and gives a wider safety margin.