Does this pork chop look done/cooked to you..?

Options
MSH2930
MSH2930 Posts: 161 Member
in Food and Nutrition
I know it is totally random... When this was done it was all nice and golden brown but I guess once the butter sauce hit it, it looked different. I did not notice until after we ate it all and did not take another pic and I wanted to post this to a group but I am thinking it looks like it is not even cooked..?! My family assures me it looks fine, but..I am just wondering..(FTR, the thermometer was well within the safe temp for cooked pork)..
c3y0gsebcz7j.jpg
Thanks!! :smile:

Replies

  • Crazyfighter99
    Crazyfighter99 Posts: 38 Member
    edited January 2016
    Options
    If the thermometer looks good, and the pork chop looked good before you added the butter sauce then I'd say you're good. Looks good in the pic too. I would eat it :)
  • MSH2930
    MSH2930 Posts: 161 Member
    Options
    TY :smile:
  • ElizabethOakes2
    ElizabethOakes2 Posts: 1,038 Member
    Options
    Was the meat pink and soft inside? Or was it whitish and firm?
  • MSH2930
    MSH2930 Posts: 161 Member
    Options
    Oh if it was pink inside I definitely would have cooked it more. It was whitish and firm.
  • MSH2930
    MSH2930 Posts: 161 Member
    Options
    I know it was definitely cooked enough, but just to me in the photograph it almost looks raw. So I was just curious if I was being paranoid, lol...I have not really cooked pork chops before, but to me, in the photograph it just looks totally un-cooked. But yes, I know it was cooked enough, I was just curious if it looks un-cooked in the pic..

    So..aesthetic purposes was my concern, as I know it was definitely cooked/done...I would hate to post it to a group I am in (not MFP) and have people think I was serving raw/undercooked pork chops, but again, I think I am/was just being paranoid. :wink:

    Clear as mud I suppose I was in my post.. :(

    But aesthetic purpose was my question.. :wink:
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    you can eat pork that's slightly pink

    that's old school needing it all white
  • LKArgh
    LKArgh Posts: 5,179 Member
    Options
    MSH2930 wrote: »
    I know it was definitely cooked enough, but just to me in the photograph it almost looks raw. So I was just curious if I was being paranoid, lol...I have not really cooked pork chops before, but to me, in the photograph it just looks totally un-cooked. But yes, I know it was cooked enough, I was just curious if it looks un-cooked in the pic..

    So..aesthetic purposes was my concern, as I know it was definitely cooked/done...I would hate to post it to a group I am in (not MFP) and have people think I was serving raw/undercooked pork chops, but again, I think I am/was just being paranoid. :wink:

    Clear as mud I suppose I was in my post.. :(

    But aesthetic purpose was my question.. :wink:

    For aesthetic purposes alone, personally I would not find this very appetising. But, (1) it could be the photo and (2) when it comes to chops of any meat, I like them to look golden/brown and be "crunchy" on the outside.
  • ModernRock
    ModernRock Posts: 372 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    you can eat pork that's slightly pink

    that's old school needing it all white

    Indeed. As of a few years ago the safe temp for pork was officially lowered to 145. A lot of people aren't used to eating it at that temp and will reject the texture and color.
  • MSH2930
    MSH2930 Posts: 161 Member
    Options
    aggelikik wrote: »
    MSH2930 wrote: »
    I know it was definitely cooked enough, but just to me in the photograph it almost looks raw. So I was just curious if I was being paranoid, lol...I have not really cooked pork chops before, but to me, in the photograph it just looks totally un-cooked. But yes, I know it was cooked enough, I was just curious if it looks un-cooked in the pic..

    So..aesthetic purposes was my concern, as I know it was definitely cooked/done...I would hate to post it to a group I am in (not MFP) and have people think I was serving raw/undercooked pork chops, but again, I think I am/was just being paranoid. :wink:

    Clear as mud I suppose I was in my post.. :(

    But aesthetic purpose was my question.. :wink:

    For aesthetic purposes alone, personally I would not find this very appetising. But, (1) it could be the photo and (2) when it comes to chops of any meat, I like them to look golden/brown and be "crunchy" on the outside.

    Yes, that was my thinking. Interesting to know though that as some have said, the temp is what counts. But I agree, I like/prefer them to look golden (which they did, just not sure what happened when photographed!! LOL!! )
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    Options
    ModernRock wrote: »
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    you can eat pork that's slightly pink

    that's old school needing it all white

    Indeed. As of a few years ago the safe temp for pork was officially lowered to 145. A lot of people aren't used to eating it at that temp and will reject the texture and color.

    +1

    It's a shame. Pork is definitely overcooked and drier than it needs to be once it's white all the way through.

Categories