3 ms·
For example, producing skinless chicken and leaner meats requires more work at the processing plant. I don't think meat stripped of fat is any healthier compar
by Evgeny 13y ago
For example, producing skinless chicken and leaner meats requires more work at the processing plant.
I don't think meat stripped of fat is any healthier compared to eating meat as it is in the animal, and also organs, and maybe even some bone marrow on top. Liver, for example, is quite packed with certain vitamins, especially A, also iron, and is often cheap as it's considered some "lesser" kind of meat.
Or fish - some types of it are dirt cheap (may depend on your location, of course). Yes, salmon may be tastier, but are blander types of fish any less healthy?
I guess the study may have compared "healthy" in the mainstream, advertised sort of way - skinless fatless chicken, lean meat, tuna fillets, fat free everything etc.
- xionon 13y agoFat has more calories per pound than lean protein, that's all. In this context, "fewer calories per ounce = healthier."
- Evgeny 13y agoWell, since we are trying to eat healthily, it just means that we'll have to eat less fat (by mass), compared to lean meat, to consume the same amount of calories. Which also means that we will need to buy less meat, which will save money, which was our initial goal. Win-win!
- gte910h 13y ago> eating meat as it is in the animal, Meat produced from american food animal lines is very fatty compared to what is in the wild. Turkeys for instance, can't really walk their breasts are so big, and cannot mate: http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=11929 http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=11929 "Fat as it's in the animal" is quite unnatural compared to wild animals, or even animals that can feed normally (aka, grass, as opposed to penned and force fed corn). Meat is a manufactured product here. Control your fat intake yourself as you would with any other manufactured product