Psst... We're working on the next generation of Chowhound! View >
HOME > Chowhound > Home Cooking >
Oct 20, 2013 11:14 AM

lamb chops low and slow

looking for way to cook 1-1/4" lamb chops low and slow to medium rare.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. Why low and slow? They're not too thick to just pan-sear to medium rare and maybe finish in the oven if necessary.

    1 Reply
    1. re: linguafood

      I agree. There is no reason to take any chop, a cut so wonderfully tender and without collagen, through the low and slow ringer. Sear those little bastards after no more than a minute or two off heat, and enjoy.

    2. Agree with lingua - no need to go low and slow.

      Pan sear after seasoning with olive oil, salt, pepper, garlic and minced rosemary, about 3 minutes per side over medium-high heat. Remove the chops, add some chopped onions and sauté fo ra bit, then deglaze the pan with some chicken stock and let it reduce. Spoon some over the chops and dinner is done in 10 minutes!

      1. Use the same method as the *Reverse Sear Process* for steaks. Low and Slow @ 200-275* until the meat reaches approximately 95-100*. then sear in a hot pan.

        6 Replies
        1. re: fourunder

          Thank you very much - since I DID ask for low and slow, it annoys me when people say 'WHY' do you want to do it. I've been cooking for 60 years and I know how to do meat. My chops are 1-12" thick and hard to get medium rare by just searing. Its either sear, then cover and cook a little or low and slow. I will try this.

          1. re: happygoluckyinoregon

            There is validity to the low and slow process, as it brings the meat to a more consistent temperature without toughening the meat as a strictly high temperature sear would.

            1. re: fourunder

              Funny thing is, that's basically what I first posted. Two minutes of indirect heat and smoke, sear, rest, eat.

              1. re: MGZ

                I have not done the method with lamb chops, but only with thicker steaks, with or without bone. Typically, when using RSM @ 200-275, it may take 20-45 minutes to reach the 95 degree mark depending on the thickness of the chops and the heat source. A grill with lid closed may rush the process, if that's what is used. Also, it does not sit in a pan that it was seared in, instead it is cooked on a rack, so the residual heat from something like a cast iron pan does not, or cannot cook it further with higher heat. The longer time to reach temperatures allows the meat to say it goes. It's a pretty fool proof method.

                The Reverse Sear Process is how Keen's cooks their Steaks and Mutton Chop...they use 300*. I'm pretty sure I've deleted the video from my email account, but I posted it on some Steak thread here on chowhound

            2. re: happygoluckyinoregon

              And *that* explanation that you find it hard to get it to medium rare by just searing in a pan would have helped those of us who said no need to go low and slow.

              There is nothing wrong with searing and then covering and cooking for a bit with some liquid in the pan.

              1. re: happygoluckyinoregon

                I rarely need to do other than a quick fry in the pan as our chops are usually only about 1cm thick, or thereabouts. On the occasions when we have thicker, we brown in the pan (particularly to crisp up the fat) and then finish in the oven - around 15 minutes @ 180.

            3. I cooked some Saratoga lamb chops the other night.Marinated them with a small amount of garlic and rosemary,olive oil.

              I heat my cast iron pan on low heat for around ten min. Set the lamb in the pan. Maybe seven min a side.Came out beautiful.Medium rare. I always like to cook meat in the pan slow.

              1. I find a low-and-slow grill to be quite nice for blade chops. Helps break down the collagen or whatever. (para) I sympathize with your reaction. If you want to cook a certain way, by gum, nobody should tell you not to do it.