PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: canned fish?
From:
"T. Martin" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:06:15 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines) 
John Miller wrote:
> (Don Wiss wrote:)
> <<I'm pretty sure the White has a lower fat content than the Light.
> So I would go for the Light, save money and get more fish oils to boot.>>

I think you're right. My recommendation was based solely on a taste
preference.

> According to USDA database, white tuna has over 3 times as much fat as light
> tuna, with over twice as much DHA and over 5 times as much EPA.

This surprises me, since water-packed canned white tuna has extremely
little fat. If it really does have 3x as much as light tuna, we must still
be talking about very small quantities.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2