Yeah, that's not even rare! I've cooked my chicken medium-rare by accident, it was edible, kinda nice actually. I think medium-well is the sweet spot for chicken, but I could see someone going for a medium even. I wouldn't really recommend medium-rare to anyone, pretty sure I dodged a bullet that time.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 hours ago

I personally absolutely hate not fully cooked chicken. Beef has to be medium rare and pork maybe not completely cooked(at least IMO), but chicken that isn't completely cooked is absolutely disgusting.

[–] jaybone 12 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

Can you actually cook chicken medium rare?

Like when you go to a restaurant, if you order a steak they will ask you how you want it cooked. They don’t ask you how you want your chicken cooked. They just cook it.

[–] makyo 15 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Nope, for whatever structural reason, the harmful stuff can penetrate chicken but not beef. Chicken has to be cooked through.

[–] RememberTheApollo_ 7 points 9 hours ago

It’s how chicken is processed. Also, yeah it can do the same to beef, especially now that they are using machines to tenderize and dye the beef before it reaches the customer.

Things like steak tartare are cured with salt and very carefully handled. The risk of illness is still there, just greatly reduced thanks to careful prep.

[–] IMALlama 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Yes you can, but you're not going to be able to cook to order.

It's all about the meat's internal temperature and the amount of time it's kept at that temperature. If the meat could reach 165° F instantly it would kill everything. If you hold it at 120° F for two hours you kill nearly everything.

https://www.canr.msu.edu/smprv/uploads/files/RTE_Poultry_Tables1.pdf

[–] Decoy321 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

If you hold it at 120° F for two hours you kill nearly everything

Which is distinctly different from everything. And the consequences of this literally affect your health. It's the reason there's a hard rule about the temperature. It's for safety.

[–] IMALlama 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I am amused at the up and downvotes on your comment. Have an up vote from me :)

A 7.0 log10 lethality means that a process has reduced the number of harmful bacteria, like Salmonella, by a factor of 10 million, effectively killing 99.99999% of them

This is the same way they measure the time duration you need to hold poultry at 165°F for.

Here's a fun thought experiment: egg whites collegiate (ie are considered cooked) at 150° F. To reach 7.0 log10 levels of salmonella killing you would have to either have to hold your eggs at this temperature for 72 seconds or cook them to a higher temperature and hold them there less long. I don't know about you, but I like over easy eggs. The center of the yolk gets no where near 150.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I am a microbiologist, I can vouch this is correct. There's the concept of infective dose, which is the number of pathogens required to infect a host.

Humans are exposed to pathogens on a regular basis. As long as the amount of exposure is not enough to cause illness, you're in the clear. A 7-log10 reduction should get pathogens far below the infective dose, unless you're eating like...a solid mass of Salmonella. Gross.

Now I'm going to sous vide some chicken breasts at 120°F this weekend, for science!

Edit: just remembered Clostridium species are more heat resistant and sporulate. Don't want botulism. 140°F it is!

[–] IMALlama 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I imagine the texture will probably be... not great, lol.

Report back on your findings!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago

Oh, it's 100% gonna be nasty. I'll make a post and tag you.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 14 hours ago

I like my chicken nuked