Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 4 Sep 2004 09:21:43 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Sep 04, 2004, at 1:43 am, KF wrote:
>> Hmmm... chicken thighs definitely don't taste this fatty to me- even
>> with the skin on. If I ate pork that was 58% fat I would definitely
>> know about it, but I can eat chicken by the kilo and not feel full.
>>
>> Ashley
>
> We're talking about your feeling versus Loren Cordain, /The Paleo
> Diet/.
> New York: John Wiley, 2002. I think Mrs. Cordain may have researched
> this and based it on something other than instinct. No offense, I just
> can't buy your reasoning. By the way, she said pork was _fifty-one_
> percent fat.
My reasoning was simply based on the fact I can't see much fat in
chicken. I can see a lot more fat in the pork I eat, but still not as
much as I want (belly pork is close to ideal). It's not until I add
fat to these foods that I find them satisfying.
You didn't have to jump down my throat. I've read The Paleo Diet and
did wonder if that was where the figure of 58% fat in chicken thigh
came from. And I wasn't saying that pork was 58% fat- I was just
saying *if* I saw a piece of pork that was 58% fat I'd know about it.
Perhaps you have misunderstood me though- I am more concerned with
visible, chewable fat, and not the stuff that is lost by cooking (which
I've started replacing in greater quantities). I've always found my
instinct to be a good guide to the quality and suitability of food-
after all, it's been millions of years in the making.
Ashley
|
|
|