saturated fat

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 at 13:54:06, Sarandipidy
wrote:

thanks for the advice. when i buy my own peanut butter i do use natural or
organic. i don't think i need to cut out hamburgers either, but when i can
substitute turkey for beef i think i will, as long as i have the option of
seasoning it well.

Try turkey ham and turkey bacon, too - I personally don't like them
enough to substitute, but some people do.
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday
snaps!

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
Do you consider beef healthy? I've relegated it to my "treats" list - I
will still eat it, but certainly not every week. I think I'd put
"chicken" rather than "beef" on the list.

Why? Some parts of chicken (legs) are a lot fatter than some beef, or even
pork, cuts. Pork tenderloin is not fatter than chicken breast for
instance... Same with the lean beef cuts, they're almost as lean as chicken
breast...

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
Do you consider beef healthy? I've relegated it to my "treats" list - I
will still eat it, but certainly not every week. I think I'd put
"chicken" rather than "beef" on the list.

Why? Some parts of chicken (legs) are a lot fatter than some beef, or even
pork, cuts. Pork tenderloin is not fatter than chicken breast for
instance... Same with the lean beef cuts, they're almost as lean as chicken
breast...

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
Do you consider beef healthy? I've relegated it to my "treats" list - I
will still eat it, but certainly not every week. I think I'd put
"chicken" rather than "beef" on the list.

Why? Some parts of chicken (legs) are a lot fatter than some beef, or even
pork, cuts. Pork tenderloin is not fatter than chicken breast for
instance... Same with the lean beef cuts, they're almost as lean as chicken
breast...

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 at 18:01:44, Lictor
wrote:

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
Do you consider beef healthy? I've relegated it to my "treats" list - I
will still eat it, but certainly not every week. I think I'd put
"chicken" rather than "beef" on the list.

Why? Some parts of chicken (legs) are a lot fatter than some beef, or even
pork, cuts. Pork tenderloin is not fatter than chicken breast for
instance... Same with the lean beef cuts, they're almost as lean as chicken
breast...


It depends on how you cook your chicken, but I also understand that red
meat isn't as healthy as it was thought to be when I was growing up in
the 1950s. Occasionally, as with everything, fine - daily, perhaps not
such a good idea.
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday
snaps!

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 at 18:01:44, Lictor
wrote:

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
Do you consider beef healthy? I've relegated it to my "treats" list - I
will still eat it, but certainly not every week. I think I'd put
"chicken" rather than "beef" on the list.

Why? Some parts of chicken (legs) are a lot fatter than some beef, or even
pork, cuts. Pork tenderloin is not fatter than chicken breast for
instance... Same with the lean beef cuts, they're almost as lean as chicken
breast...


It depends on how you cook your chicken, but I also understand that red
meat isn't as healthy as it was thought to be when I was growing up in
the 1950s. Occasionally, as with everything, fine - daily, perhaps not
such a good idea.
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday
snaps!

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 at 18:01:44, Lictor
wrote:

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
Do you consider beef healthy? I've relegated it to my "treats" list - I
will still eat it, but certainly not every week. I think I'd put
"chicken" rather than "beef" on the list.

Why? Some parts of chicken (legs) are a lot fatter than some beef, or even
pork, cuts. Pork tenderloin is not fatter than chicken breast for
instance... Same with the lean beef cuts, they're almost as lean as chicken
breast...


It depends on how you cook your chicken, but I also understand that red
meat isn't as healthy as it was thought to be when I was growing up in
the 1950s. Occasionally, as with everything, fine - daily, perhaps not
such a good idea.
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday
snaps!

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
It depends on how you cook your chicken, but I also understand that red
meat isn't as healthy as it was thought to be when I was growing up in
the 1950s.

Whatever way you cook your chicken, you're not going to go much lower than
3% fat, which is where pork tenderloin sits.
I think the whole red meat=bad business comes from the fact that red meat
often means saturated fat. But then, chicken also means saturated fats
nowadays. And this doesn't apply if you pick lean cuts.
It might also come from the fact that chicken is a whole lot cheaper to
produce but sells pretty high (best performer being turkey: 1 pound of
powdered food = 1 pound of meat), so that the industry had some interrest in
diabolizing red meat. Meat does seem to have some impact on colon cancer,
but that seems to be any kind of meat, red, white or chicken.

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
It depends on how you cook your chicken, but I also understand that red
meat isn't as healthy as it was thought to be when I was growing up in
the 1950s.

Whatever way you cook your chicken, you're not going to go much lower than
3% fat, which is where pork tenderloin sits.
I think the whole red meat=bad business comes from the fact that red meat
often means saturated fat. But then, chicken also means saturated fats
nowadays. And this doesn't apply if you pick lean cuts.
It might also come from the fact that chicken is a whole lot cheaper to
produce but sells pretty high (best performer being turkey: 1 pound of
powdered food = 1 pound of meat), so that the industry had some interrest in
diabolizing red meat. Meat does seem to have some impact on colon cancer,
but that seems to be any kind of meat, red, white or chicken.

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
It depends on how you cook your chicken, but I also understand that red
meat isn't as healthy as it was thought to be when I was growing up in
the 1950s.

Whatever way you cook your chicken, you're not going to go much lower than
3% fat, which is where pork tenderloin sits.
I think the whole red meat=bad business comes from the fact that red meat
often means saturated fat. But then, chicken also means saturated fats
nowadays. And this doesn't apply if you pick lean cuts.
It might also come from the fact that chicken is a whole lot cheaper to
produce but sells pretty high (best performer being turkey: 1 pound of
powdered food = 1 pound of meat), so that the industry had some interrest in
diabolizing red meat. Meat does seem to have some impact on colon cancer,
but that seems to be any kind of meat, red, white or chicken.