Steak or Salmon?

Options
123578

Replies

  • MizTerry
    MizTerry Posts: 3,763 Member
    Options
    Salmon with lots of lemon. (Well, it's what "I" would choose)
  • Chezzie84
    Chezzie84 Posts: 873 Member
    Options
    Personally I would go for steak but only because I don't like salmon.
  • capnrus789
    capnrus789 Posts: 2,736 Member
    Options
    Eat both, like A MAN! THIS IS MURICA!
  • anuhealani1
    anuhealani1 Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    You're asking two different questions that have two different answers. No, there is not a significant caloric difference (assuming similar preparations), but the salmon is a lot healthier.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    JoRocka wrote: »
    Both.

    Or don't bother with either and get what you really want:
    Ribeye- or portorhouse.

    next question- is it ACTUALLY a steak house- or are you going to a place that just does steaks too?
    Because- yeah I'll get a filet mignon at like- Applebees- or long horn- but if I"m ACTUALLY at a real steak house- I'm going to order a real steak.

    Y u haten on filets????
  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    Options
    Because they don't taste like anything. Flavorless protein that only tastes like whatever sauce you put on. Like tofu.

    Rib-eye, Porterhouse, or possibly even a NY Strip would be better
  • randomtai
    randomtai Posts: 9,003 Member
    Options
    anuhealani1 wrote: »
    You're asking two different questions that have two different answers. No, there is not a significant caloric difference (assuming similar preparations), but the salmon is a lot healthier.

    How so? :huh:
  • peachyfuzzle
    peachyfuzzle Posts: 1,122 Member
    Options
    glevinso wrote: »
    Because they don't taste like anything. Flavorless protein that only tastes like whatever sauce you put on. Like tofu.

    Rib-eye, Porterhouse, or possibly even a NY Strip would be better

    They are extremely tasty to me, and I refuse to put anything but salt/pepper on my steaks unless I splurge for bearnaise.
  • nossmf
    nossmf Posts: 9,844 Member
    Options
    TR0berts wrote: »
    My thought? If it didn't really matter which I ate, then I'd probably go with the one that I didn't eat as often. In this particular case, the steak. But that's just how I'd probably decide.

    That said, since it doesn't really matter, go with whichever you'd prefer.

    +1
  • anuhealani1
    anuhealani1 Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    randomtai wrote: »
    anuhealani1 wrote: »
    You're asking two different questions that have two different answers. No, there is not a significant caloric difference (assuming similar preparations), but the salmon is a lot healthier.

    How so? :huh:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/542.abstract
  • peachyfuzzle
    peachyfuzzle Posts: 1,122 Member
    Options
    Delicious, delicious carcinoma...
  • randomtai
    randomtai Posts: 9,003 Member
    Options
    peachyfuzzle wrote: »
    Delicious, delicious carcinoma...

    For real :laugh:
  • HeySwoleSister
    HeySwoleSister Posts: 1,938 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    never2bstopped wrote: »
    EWJLang wrote: »
    never2bstopped wrote: »
    glevinso wrote: »
    So-called "prime rib", to me, always feels like banquet food. You know the type - kinda bland, mass produced for 100+ people, but not egregiously bad.

    The trick to a good rib roast steak is to sear and cook to rare. Let rest 30min at least. Cut thick and sear on high with butter 2min each side max to crust.

    Best standing rib roast cooking formula is in the Barbara Kafka "Roasting" cookbook. It seems odd, with lots of dramatic changes in oven temps, but, I swear....PERFECT every time.

    I need a good meats cookbook! Does this book cover all types of animals?

    YES. TONS of critters, plus veg, too. All high temperature roasted and YUMMY. Plus it's a good read with tons of narrative and chatter about each type of food.

    Love this cookbook.
  • anuhealani1
    anuhealani1 Posts: 15 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    I get it: People like beef. (I do, too.) I would probably get the steak in this scenario, because I like tasty food that's cooked correctly. But that wasn't the question asked, and it's sort of shocking to me that anyone could still be of the opinion that beef is as healthy as fish.
  • HeySwoleSister
    HeySwoleSister Posts: 1,938 Member
    Options
    anuhealani1 wrote: »
    I get it: People like beef. (I do, too.) I would probably get the steak in this scenario, because I like tasty food that's cooked correctly. But that wasn't the question asked, and it's sort of shocking to me that anyone could still be of the opinion that beef is as healthy as fish.

    You haven't clarified why it isn't . "Healthier" is such a loaded term. There are a bazillion variables in nutrition, some foods are "better" by some metrics and "worse" in others.

    It's all in how you prioritize your metrics. Need iron? The steak is healthier. Want more Omega 3s? The salmon is healthier. Your priorities may not be the same as someone else's.
  • anuhealani1
    anuhealani1 Posts: 15 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    anuhealani1 wrote: »
    I get it: People like beef. (I do, too.) I would probably get the steak in this scenario, because I like tasty food that's cooked correctly. But that wasn't the question asked, and it's sort of shocking to me that anyone could still be of the opinion that beef is as healthy as fish.

    And I can't believe you posted the link as solid proof. You based your opinion on others based on assumptions. That's sad.

    Scientific studies are invalid as sources to back up stated opinions? Scientific studies are literally the opposite of assumptions. I don't know what to say to that but "wow".
  • anuhealani1
    anuhealani1 Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    EWJLang wrote: »
    anuhealani1 wrote: »
    I get it: People like beef. (I do, too.) I would probably get the steak in this scenario, because I like tasty food that's cooked correctly. But that wasn't the question asked, and it's sort of shocking to me that anyone could still be of the opinion that beef is as healthy as fish.

    You haven't clarified why it isn't . "Healthier" is such a loaded term. There are a bazillion variables in nutrition, some foods are "better" by some metrics and "worse" in others.

    It's all in how you prioritize your metrics. Need iron? The steak is healthier. Want more Omega 3s? The salmon is healthier. Your priorities may not be the same as someone else's.

    I clarified upthread. Red meat causes cancer.

  • anuhealani1
    anuhealani1 Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    anuhealani1 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    anuhealani1 wrote: »
    I get it: People like beef. (I do, too.) I would probably get the steak in this scenario, because I like tasty food that's cooked correctly. But that wasn't the question asked, and it's sort of shocking to me that anyone could still be of the opinion that beef is as healthy as fish.

    And I can't believe you posted the link as solid proof. You based your opinion on others based on assumptions. That's sad.

    Scientific studies are invalid as sources to back up stated opinions? Scientific studies are literally the opposite of assumptions. I don't know what to say to that but "wow".

    You're study didn't actually prove anything. It was making assumptions and you made an assumption based on their assumption. I know you're new so it's okay.

    So a completely unfounded opinion (because you don't like controlled experiments) is somehow not an assumption? Right.

    Way to be completely condescending, too.

Categories