Steak or Salmon?
Replies
-
anuhealani1 wrote: »anuhealani1 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.
There's all the "may" and "could" in the paragraphs. I saw nothing conclusive.
Have you ever read a scientific study? That's the sort of language they use. They're not positing a scientific theory; that's a lot harder to do and that's why there are so few of them.
But my bad; I shouldn't have posted in a forum called "Food and Nutrition" when it appears to be a forum about taste preferences, humor, and not actually addressing the questions asked.0 -
anuhealani1 wrote: »anuhealani1 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.
Everything causes cancer.
Super argument. Clearly you're right.
Well what else has been said to cause cancer? The sun, cell phones, talcum powder, oral sex, alcohol. So everyone needs to give up all that stuff as well right?
Cool straw man argument, bro.0 -
anuhealani1 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.
No, honey. I expect you to clarify with some degree of scientific credibility, not just the BS "cawzez cansur!!!!!!11!" bulshite.
Actual scientific metrics on good beef vs. wild caught fish are pretty much even.0 -
anuhealani1 wrote: »anuhealani1 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.
Everything causes cancer.
Super argument. Clearly you're right.
Well what else has been said to cause cancer? The sun, cell phones, talcum powder, oral sex, alcohol. So everyone needs to give up all that stuff as well right?
Ok you have my attention now MrM.
0 -
anuhealani1 wrote: »anuhealani1 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.
Everything causes cancer.
Super argument. Clearly you're right.
Well what else has been said to cause cancer? The sun, cell phones, talcum powder, oral sex, alcohol. So everyone needs to give up all that stuff as well right?
Ok you have my attention now MrM.
Really. Sign me up for cancer.
Did I just say that out loud?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »anuhealani1 wrote: »anuhealani1 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.
Everything causes cancer.
Super argument. Clearly you're right.
Well what else has been said to cause cancer? The sun, cell phones, talcum powder, oral sex, alcohol. So everyone needs to give up all that stuff as well right?
Ok you have my attention now MrM.
Really. Sign me up for cancer.
Did I just say that out loud?
Let's see, a steak, a nice bottle of wine, pretty sure there's only one way to finish off that night. I'm doomed.
0 -
anuhealani1 wrote: »anuhealani1 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.
Everything causes cancer.
Super argument. Clearly you're right.
Well what else has been said to cause cancer? The sun, cell phones, talcum powder, oral sex, alcohol. So everyone needs to give up all that stuff as well right?
Ok you have my attention now MrM.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)0 -
never2bstopped 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 love this book. It changed my default way of cooking a good many meat options. And I've done the rib roast for Christmas dinner--delicious!0 -
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.
For one meal--the OP's question? There's no effect unless she's allergic to something, more likely to choke, or the restaurant has a source problem/poor handling issues that lead to food poisoning.
The red meat and bad health outcomes issue is an interesting one because so far it's basically a correlation and there's no good explanation. Until recently the popular one was saturated fat, but that's not so favored now (although some still hold to it). The most significant correlation is not just red meat, but specific types (so-called "processed" meats), and nothing to really separate out meat as a cause vs. something else different about groups who eat lots of red meat (or lots of "processed" meat specifically) vs. those who do not.
I'm pretty open-minded on this--it wouldn't shock me if there turns out to be something causative about the red meat (or certain red meats), although I certainly have not cut red meat out of my diet (and am skeptical about the saturated fat issue in particular). (I do try to eat even more fish, including fatty fish like salmon, but admittedly that's mostly because I love it.) What I find problematic, however, is the suggestion that it's unhealthy to eat the steak for one meal--on what basis would that be the case?0 -
so I can eat salmon and definitely consume mercury …
OR
I can eat some red meat and it MAY lead to cancer…for the record, I am eating a NY Strip tonight..I guess I should call my oncologist and tell him to schedule me for chemo ...
Hmmmmmm
0 -
0 -
No control group, predisposed mice for cancer, large doses and one time measurements which where not duplicated by any outside agency works perfectly with epidemiology, because epidemiology end there and goes no further because it can't, why do they even speculate. The leap of faith is that because red meat has glycan and the fact that large doses caused liver damage in mice and not even the colon that most point to as the cancer that red meat is correlated to. It's totally speculative and with no way to know that the same large doses in human trials would result with the same effects leaves no doubt of it's efficacy and of course the dose is well, unrealistic in real life. I'm not surprised that people have jumped on this poorly control trial as proof to prop up their biases. Also most people don't understand when something has the potential to increase risk for disease, it's based on the probability of that someone getting that disease in the first place and not that it increases risk across a whole population.anuhealani1 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
0 -
I just browsed through three studies on google scholar and all three said "may cause cancer" but then they also said that when combined with vegetables they then had a decreased risk of cancer…
so sounds like the jury is out on this one and there is no conclusive evidence, which makes sense since numerous factors play into cancer risk and cause.0 -
Steak of course.0
-
Not to mention that Neu5Gc has never been identified in any other studies as it relates to meat means, this is brand new and I'm not too sure if 2 of the authors of this particular study and their connection as co founders of a laboratory that just by coincidence has a licence to study Neu5Gc antibodies for cancer........looks like a grant extension might have some influence.......totally bogus and I'm sure other scientists are looking at this study closely and won't be fooled, or maybe they just giggled to themselves....just kidding, I'm sure all studies are taken seriously by peers and so they should.neanderthin wrote: »
No control group, predisposed mice for cancer, large doses and one time measurements which where not duplicated by any outside agency works perfectly with epidemiology, because epidemiology end there and goes no further because it can't, why do they even speculate. The leap of faith is that because red meat has glycan and the fact that large doses caused liver damage in mice and not even the colon that most point to as the cancer that red meat is correlated to. It's totally speculative and with no way to know that the same large doses in human trials would result with the same effects leaves no doubt of it's efficacy and of course the dose is well, unrealistic in real life. I'm not surprised that people have jumped on this poorly control trial as proof to prop up their biases. Also most people don't understand when something has the potential to increase risk for disease, it's based on the probability of that someone getting that disease in the first place and not that it increases risk across a whole population.anuhealani1 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
How dare you refute her study she posted just because you don't agree with it HOW DARE YOU!!!!
0 -
Doesn't salmon contain mercury?????
Not Significant amounts. Salmon tend to be very young when they are caught. 2 or 3 years max. The fish you need to be concerned about for mercury are the large old fish like swordfish, shark, many kinds of tuna. They live a lot longer and tend to be much older when they are caught, resulting in the high mercury content0 -
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????
Go eat a good skirt steak- and come back to me on filets.
Seriously.... once you've had picana- or skirt steak- eating a filet is like eating boiled chicken.
It gets the job done- but certainly not anything to get excited about.
nods nods nods- also this.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 better0 -
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????
Go eat a good skirt steak- and come back to me on filets.
Seriously.... once you've had picana- or skirt steak- eating a filet is like eating boiled chicken.
It gets the job done- but certainly not anything to get excited about.
nods nods nods- also this.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
Skirt steak, chimichurri sauce, garlic roasted potatoes, bottle of Malbec.
I would be one happy girl.
0 -
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????
Go eat a good skirt steak- and come back to me on filets.
Seriously.... once you've had picana- or skirt steak- eating a filet is like eating boiled chicken.
It gets the job done- but certainly not anything to get excited about.
nods nods nods- also this.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
Skirt steak, chimichurri sauce, garlic roasted potatoes, bottle of Malbec.
I would be one happy girl.
I am right there with you on this... well except the girl part...0 -
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????
Go eat a good skirt steak- and come back to me on filets.
Seriously.... once you've had picana- or skirt steak- eating a filet is like eating boiled chicken.
It gets the job done- but certainly not anything to get excited about.
nods nods nods- also this.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
oh, I like all those too ..I just love me a bone in filet rare with some red wine ....boom!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions