What is this colored fiber in my chicken? • Hacker News Board

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#271

Post by gumby » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 5:48 PM UTC

Hexcles wrote: post #118

Animal welfare aside, I find people in North America really in favour of chicken breast, much more than other parts, say chicken thigh. Yet I myself think chicken thigh tastes much better, especially with the skin (yet again it is usually skinless in supermarkets here, unfortunately). Is it because of nutrition (percentage of fat/protein etc.)? On top of that, chicken feet are considered unacceptable by many...

Interestingly, the marketing of the white breast meat was almost a problem but worked out well for Big Chicken: they overdid the marketing of breast meat and had a problem of how to dispose of the thigh meat (there's only so much pet food required) but nowadays most is exported to Russia where the bland breast meat is not desired.

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#272

Post by Baeocystin » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 6:06 PM UTC

omginternets wrote: post #255

Baeocystin wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expanding animal cells really isn't all that different than expanding anything else. It was expensive because the details needed to be refined, but what cost $250,000 a couple years ago costs ~$8 today. Like I said before, I really don't want to push anyone to try anything they don't want to. But people know how hot dogs are made ( https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pw_CTCSkOZI/WAPJuZWaF5I/AAAAAAAAm... ), and it hasn't stopp…

Yes, and changing fat molecules into trans-fat molecules isn't all that different than any other chemical reaction. The devil is in the details, and nutrition touches upon highly complex systems. The point being, we've already seen how seemingly simple, innocuous changes to nutritional substances can have nasty consequences. To think this time is different is pure hubris. I get your point, but you seem to be missing…

I think you're overstating the risk of cell culture. Trans fats, to take your example, are a side chain reaction from the hydrogenation of vegetable oils, and results in fats that were never a significant part of our diet.

Cell culture is growing more of what we've already evolved to eat.

Do I want all food tested for safety? Of course. If they were creating a brand new cell line from scratch instead of using cells we already know we can eat, I would share your concern to a much greater degree.

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#273

Post by hellofunk » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 6:08 PM UTC

problems wrote: post #226

jerguismi wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think red meat is better? I've been trying to avoid red meat lately for health reasons, and it is very difficult because for many restaurant major of the items seem to contain red meat. I end up eating lots of chicken and fish. Going vegetarian would be probably best...

Chicken is also significantly better from a carbon emissions perspective too I believe. Going off http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/Greenhouse... chickens are far better than almost all other animals. So if you're going to eat meat, chickens are a good choice in this way at least.

I typically stick just to freshly caught fish from the coast. Looks like even canned or farmed fish is just as emissions-bad as chicken.

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#274

Post by krona » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 6:12 PM UTC

ddoran wrote: post #210

krona wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where you live but in the UK, dogs are (in law) personal property and discounting welfare issues, you can do what you want with them if you're the owner. Furthermore, farmers can kill your dog (humanly) on his land if it is causing distress to his animals. In law this is a lawful excuse to cause criminal damage. There are all kinds of lawful excuses. For instance, a person (usually a farmer) is free to k…

> discounting welfare issues, you can do what you want with them if you're the owner I'm not sure what you mean when you say "discounting welfare issues". Sure, if you discount the laws that protect dogs, they're not protected, but The Animal Welfare act (2006) does exist, very much does protect dogs from people "doing what you want with them" and is enforced. Of course, that protection is not offered at all costs. I…

In other words, people can do what they want with their dogs. They just need to kill them first. There are lots of ways you can do that, but starvation isn't one of them, because that's a welfare issue. Seems pretty obvious.

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#275

Post by kefka » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 6:14 PM UTC

idiot74 wrote: post #205

kefka wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was also making the point that: 1. Vegetarianism is not an end-all-be-all 2. Some people fare very badly on many vegetables. Potatoes, grains, rice, and those sort of things are effectively slow poisons for Diabetics. 3. No, you will not shame or embarrass us into not eating meat. I'd personally consider vat grown meat. We're not there yet.

1. Who said it was? But it's clear it benefits the environment and individuals. 2. Hmm, I keep reading things saying that vegetarian diets can be healthy for people with diabetes. Even on the official American Diabetes association website [1]. But if it truly isn't then it is a special case. 3. I agree that shame and embarrassment is not a good way to persuade people. However, there are lots of genuinely good things…

1. Who said it was? But it's clear it benefits the environment and individuals.

I'll give you good for the environment. I know animal protein costs more resource than plants do. Good for individuals? Nope. You're going to have to defend that claim.

2. Hmm, I keep reading things saying that vegetarian diets can be healthy for people with diabetes. Even on the official American Diabetes association website [1]. But if it truly isn't then it is a special case.

You undoubtedly triggered my disdain and hatred for the American Diabetes Association. It is my opinion, backed by my own personal data as fact, that they are peddling false medical science.

ADA claims that a diabetic can have 60g carbs per meal. Sure. And I'm sure they say testing 1x a day is fine as well. Instead, if you test regularly around the day, you'll find that certain foods cause significant blood-sugar issues. For me, harder squashes, potatoes, carrots all cause problems. I know the foods that cause spikes for me. I avoid them, or eat them very sparingly to level out any spikes.

Beer. Same. You're told by doctors that Guinness is fine. 7.5g carbs. And the docs never say to graph your blood sugar from before first sip to end. You can see your own results.

In the end, a diet high in fiber (types of carbohydrates that cannot be easily digested, and are good for many things), fats, and proteins are the healthiest for us diabetics. I only have my blood sugar reports to point to.

Yet, ADA recommends way too many carbs, and more drugs. Metformin is great... until it doesn't work 8-10 years later. Is it resistance, or bad eating that makes metformin not usable? Who knows. So I'm doing both. Taking Metformin when I know I cannot easily control my food, and eat very low carbs/day. I've already lost 80 lbs, and feel better than I have in years (well, not not, caught a cold at work, sigh).

And per note, I ALSO eat vegetables. I won't eat potatoes, certain squashes, and other high starch veggies. I also limit how much sugar containing veggies to my personal limits (which amounts to no higher than 140mg/dL glucose - the point of neurological damage).

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#276

Post by omginternets » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 6:46 PM UTC

Baeocystin wrote: post #272

omginternets wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and changing fat molecules into trans-fat molecules isn't all that different than any other chemical reaction. The devil is in the details, and nutrition touches upon highly complex systems. The point being, we've already seen how seemingly simple, innocuous changes to nutritional substances can have nasty consequences. To think this time is different is pure hubris. I get your point, but you seem to be missing…

I think you're overstating the risk of cell culture. Trans fats, to take your example, are a side chain reaction from the hydrogenation of vegetable oils, and results in fats that were never a significant part of our diet. Cell culture is growing more of what we've already evolved to eat. Do I want all food tested for safety? Of course. If they were creating a brand new cell line from scratch instead of using cells w…

>I think you're overstating the risk of cell culture. Trans fats, to take your example, are a side chain reaction from the hydrogenation of vegetable oils, and results in fats that were never a significant part of our diet.

And I think you're understating the risk of side-effects, i.e.: understating the immense complexity of biological systems.

Yours is little more than a claim of faith.

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#277

Post by exclusiv » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 6:49 PM UTC

bluejekyll wrote: post #233

aklemm wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The preference for white meat is almost pathological. Constantly I hear (I cook and teach people to cook) people complain that they can't get chicken right, that it's dry or rubbery. And then they REFUSE to cook or try thighs instead, which are forgiving and tasty.

When roasting a whole bird, I love to use the turn method. Some people turn the bird three times, I just do it once and find it's awesome (same for turkey). Basically, cook the chicken upside down for basically half the time, and then finish it breast side up. Juicy breast meat every time.

I smoke whole birds including turkeys in my Big Green Egg. When doing a whole bird - breasts get to temp much quicker so you can put ice packs on the breasts before you cook to try and get all parts to hit ~160 degrees at the same time. I don't turn it at all, I use a Sittin Turkey/Chicken ceramic holder to keep the bird upright and moist from the liquid inside.

You probably don't have room in your oven to do a turkey upright but it works well on a grill and you can easily do a whole chicken upright in the oven. You can pour beer or other liquid and spices into the center of it to keep it moist. It's just a better beer can chicken. Highly recommend.

Good suggestion on turning in oven though if you aren't upright - less is more. Same with steaks and burgers.

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#278

Post by sctb » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 6:57 PM UTC

bkkssnn wrote: post #165

idiot74 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless one is producing their own vegetables, industrial production of them is no different than meat. This post lacks common sense. Processing and feeding animals uses far more resources than processing crops (especially since crops are often processed in order to feed animals...). "The efficiency with which various animals convert grain into protein varies widely. With cattle in feedlots, it takes roughly 7 kilog…

I think the username fits in this case.

No personal attacks like this on HN, please.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#279

Post by Aaron1011 » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 7:06 PM UTC

ericdykstra wrote: post #61

rickycook wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

most of us in hacker news aren't most of the world. also, "natural" is a kind of ridiculous term. plenty of food additives are natural, but that doesn't make them good. also plenty that are unnatural aren't all bad. medicines are highly "unnatural", but they save lives. why is food any different? given how quickly we're heading toward a world in which we don't have the land area to be able to feed our population (and…

> medicines are highly "unnatural", but they save lives. why is food any different? Many medicines also cause more harm than they provide help. Just look at the history of drugs that have had to be taken off the market due to crippling or deadly side effects just to treat some mild cold symptoms or something equally minor. "Natural" is not at all a ridiculous term. It can be made ridiculous when things like "natural…

> Many medicines also cause more harm than they provide help

How many is 'many'? 50%? 25%? Or simply 'more than zero'?

> but I will take natural (or at least human incrementally improved over generations and generations) over artificial (top down diet science-ing) any day.

I assume that you would prefer an 'unnatural' vaccination to the 'natural' disease it prevents. If so, which categories of 'natural' do you prefer?

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#280

Post by abandonliberty » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 7:09 PM UTC

Hexcles wrote: post #118

Animal welfare aside, I find people in North America really in favour of chicken breast, much more than other parts, say chicken thigh. Yet I myself think chicken thigh tastes much better, especially with the skin (yet again it is usually skinless in supermarkets here, unfortunately). Is it because of nutrition (percentage of fat/protein etc.)? On top of that, chicken feet are considered unacceptable by many...

Much of it comes down to people's discomfort with meat.

White meat is consistent, reliable, mild-flavored, and often is served such that it contains no clues that it came from a living animal.

Those not comfortable with murdering for food shouldn't do so by proxy.