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:
From:
Jim Walsh <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 5 Jan 2002 14:27:10 +1030
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (98 lines)
"matesz [log in to unmask] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX" wrote:
>
> Jim Walsh posted this:
>> Fresh sardines are rather rare locally and most (if not all) fresh
>> salmon (available locally) is farmed. Are all the "fish benefits"
>> lost by farming and canning? Which is better, farmed-fresh or
>> canned? What evidence exists to support the claims?
>
> My reply:
> You mention only two types of fish; there are hundreds.  I have not
> problem finding wild fresh and frozen fish.

Indeed, I realize there are other fish. I tend to focus mainly on salmon
and sardines because I believe they are particularly high in omega-3 FA.
I suppose the implied question within my comments is 'Would I be better
to use different fish that are readily available fresh with minimum
processing?' 'Will I actually end up with more omega-3 FA eating a fish
that, although lower than say, salmon in omega-3 FA when fresh actually
has more omega-3 FA than *processed* (or farmed) salmon?'

[snip]

> Examples of some of my favorite wild fish
> include Artic Char (a relative of salmon, from the trout family),
> Chilean Sea Bass, Tuna, Scrod (baby cod).  There are many
> other kinds you can buy wild. I get some wild salmon as well.

I certainly need to expand the variety of fish I eat. (For variety of
nutrients, not just omega-3 FA.) But, I do want to try to focus on high
omega-3 FA. Also, unfortunately, cost is a factor for me.

> From the supermarket I only buy fish that is frozen (at sea).
> I've had too many smelly and off tasting batches of fish from
> the supermarkets here, which buy (older, less fresh) fish from
> our local seafood shop, or have inexperienced workers who say
> the salmon is wild when it is not.

Indeed... How do we really know we are getting what we ask for? This
applies across the board including the grain-fed/grass-fed issue with
cattle etc.

> In supermarkets I buy frozen deep sea dory, blue hake, cod, and
> chilean sea bass fillets.  The first two are the least expensive,
> and low in fat.  There are others.
>
> Canning leads to greater nutrient losses than freezing.  There is
> not need to run double blind studies for this!  Fresh fish is more
> flavorful and nutritious than canned.  Try it for yourself.

Unfortunately, my personal "taste" satisfaction doesn't tell me how
nutritious a food is.

> The fresh fish doesn't taste tinny like the can.  What Cordain
> says in his book is that if you buy canned fish, buy it packed
> in water without salt---not hard to do.

I always buy canned fish in water - and always try to get "low salt" or
"no added salt". These can be difficult to get at low prices. (I guess
you get what you pay for!)  :)

The sardines I prefer to buy now are King Oscar "In Pure Spring Water".
Ingredients listed as "Norwegian Brisling Sardines, Spring Water". I
have no way of knowing if they are wild or farmed. (Someone recently
suggested that *all* sardines are wild.)

> You may need to go to a health food store or join a co op buying
> club if you want to avoid hydrolyzed vegetable protein or broth
> (added to most supermarket brands), which can contain MSG.
> If you are after the most nutrients, fresh is best!

> You said:
>> These are the kind of questions I (we?) need answered. There is
>> simply no point in Cordain asserting that canned fish is not as
>> good as fresh fish if he has no evidence to back up the claim
>> with science. (I haven't seen his book yet - perhaps he does
>> back it up?)
>
> My Reply:
> You need to buy his book.  He has 20 PAGES of references.

That certainly sounds encouraging. Even if the text of the book is
"soft", if the claims made are referenced to "hard" science, that is all
I require. Is the text of the book annotated with numbers to specific
scientific references, or are the references "general"?

> If you think he
> doesn't explain this, you need to read his book because he explains a lot.
> His is not a technical book, that would be over the heads of most people.
> It is readable and backed with refs.  Read it!

This sound more encouraging, I will make an effort to read a copy.

Thanks Rachel, I shall at the very least make sure I get a look at the
book some time soon!


Jim.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2