Perhaps a silly question about chicken

SGreen134

I am making a slow cooker chicken dish for dinner. It calls for chicken pieces with skin and bone. I will cook it this way (with skin) however I will not eat the skin so when I log my calories, I can log chicken without skin, correct?

Thanks in advance!!!!!!

SGreen134

<crickets>

NomNomCupcakes

When I eat chicken I also remove the skin. I usually search "Generic" chicken (leg whole, thigh whole, etc). There are some skinless entries. Hope that helps

katejkelley

I would remove the skin anyway. Otherwise your meat is basting in all that fat and you would need to include it in your calorie intake.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

I would remove the skin anyway. Otherwise your meat is basting in all that fat and you would need to include it in your calorie intake.

Geez there is NOTHING wrong with the fat. Oh brother, fat is NOT the enemy.

bcattoes

Yes. If you remove the skin before eating, you should not count it.

palmerig88

I would just enjoy a bit of the skin but if you are going to remove it after...you might save a bit on fat but I really don't think it wl make a big difference in calories etc for logging purposes

SGreen134

THANK YOU very much...I just wanted to be sure I was doing it correctly!

SGreen134

I would remove the skin anyway. Otherwise your meat is basting in all that fat and you would need to include it in your calorie intake.

Geez there is NOTHING wrong with the fat. Oh brother, fat is NOT the enemy.

Agree!

GaglianiGirl

It doesn't really matter if fat is the enemy or not,nit was a logging question. I agree that if it cooks in the fat, wheather or not it's good or bad, she would need to log it somehow.

I would leave the skin off if I didn't plan to eat it. I'm sure it won't ruin the recipe.

katejkelley

I would remove the skin anyway. Otherwise your meat is basting in all that fat and you would need to include it in your calorie intake.

Geez there is NOTHING wrong with the fat. Oh brother, fat is NOT the enemy.

If you are trying to limit your saturated fat intake, then removing the skin is one way to cut back. There are good fats and bad fats. Chicken fat is in the latter category.

bcattoes

I would remove the skin anyway. Otherwise your meat is basting in all that fat and you would need to include it in your calorie intake.

Chicken fat is not as high in saturated fat as darker meats. It's still the same number of calories, though. Having the meat basting in "all that fat" will keep the meat moist and tender. Our bodies need fat so you don't want to cut it out completely.

Suzannejl

LOL I thought this said a silly question about children!!!! I wouldn't recommend putting them in a crock pot!!! ;-)

AprilRenewed

I would just enjoy a bit of the skin but if you are going to remove it after...you might save a bit on fat but I really don't think it wl make a big difference in calories etc for logging purposes

I don't think so either, and you'll have the flavor withOUT the fat.

mmapags

I would remove the skin anyway. Otherwise your meat is basting in all that fat and you would need to include it in your calorie intake.

Geez there is NOTHING wrong with the fat. Oh brother, fat is NOT the enemy.

If you are trying to limit your saturated fat intake, then removing the skin is one way to cut back. There are good fats and bad fats. Chicken fat is in the latter category.

The lipid hypothesis has been debunked. There is nothing wrong with saturated fat with the exception of a small group of high responders with a family history of cholesterol issues. For the rest of us, dietary fat and cholesterol have littlle to no relationship to serum cholesterol. Additionally, saturated fat combined with high intensity exercise boosts HDL cholesterol which has a postive effect on cardiac health. Bottom line is, for the vast majority of the population, there is no need to limit saturated fat. There is a lot of research related info available on line regarding the lipid hypothesis.

NomNomCupcakes

LOL I thought this said a silly question about children!!!! I wouldn't recommend putting them in a crock pot!!! ;-)

Lmaooo

Bentley2718

I would remove the skin anyway. Otherwise your meat is basting in all that fat and you would need to include it in your calorie intake.

I read an article a few years ago that said research suggests otherwise. Unfortunately, I do not have a cite.

dansls1

If I'm cooking with it and not sure, I would include it to be safe, but not worry too much about it.

hooperkay

LOL I thought this said a silly question about children!!!! I wouldn't recommend putting them in a crock pot!!! ;-)

Lmaooo

I thought the same thing...

hooperkay

I would cook them with skin cause it would be dry otherwise. Or if you are totally against skin could add broth to crockpot to keep moist. If I didn't eat it I wouldn't log it.

Suzannejl

p.s. to answer the question about the chicken, and not the children, I wouldn't worry about logging in the fat. I make chicken soup all the time, you the skin and marrow from the bones to flavor the soup. If you don't it's very very bland and you end up having to add lot's of salt, which is not the same or as good. yes, throw away the skin off of your portion before you eat.

Enjoy you chicken, and your children! ;-)

vingogly

If you make chicken soup or broth, the fat cooks out and rises to the top where it can be removed. This includes the fat from the skin. If you skim off the fat that rises to the top of the crock-pot (fat floats on water), I believe you'll be removing the majority of the fat from the skin but still get the flavor benefit of cooking with the skin.

Here's an article that claims skin doesn't increase the fat content of the meat if it's removed after cooking.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/483509-how-to-roast-chicken-under-the-skin/

Personally, I'd count the calories as chicken with the skin off.

Lesa_Sass

To some of you fat may not be the enemy but animal fat is to me. Animal fat is dangerous due to my cholesterol and that chicken fat is saturated fat, and yes, it is the enemy. I choose not to take a pill so I can be healthy, I choose to be healthy instead.

Cooking the chicken WITH OUT the fat is way healthier for you because the other poster was right, it does seep into the chicken. You count the chicken as cooked with skin due to this.

So yes, although you are not eating the fat, you log it as chicken cooked with fat on.

omma_to_3

I would remove the skin anyway. Otherwise your meat is basting in all that fat and you would need to include it in your calorie intake.

Geez there is NOTHING wrong with the fat. Oh brother, fat is NOT the enemy.

Agree!

The point of the question was how to record the calories and the extra fat would add some additional calories. Not enough that I would worry about it, but it does ADD calories.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

I would remove the skin anyway. Otherwise your meat is basting in all that fat and you would need to include it in your calorie intake.

Geez there is NOTHING wrong with the fat. Oh brother, fat is NOT the enemy.

If you are trying to limit your saturated fat intake, then removing the skin is one way to cut back. There are good fats and bad fats. Chicken fat is in the latter category.

Sorry, but it has been proven time and time again that Saturated Fat is very important and should NOT be avoided.

The only BAD fats are those (PUFAS) bottled vegetable oils that are rancid sitting on the grocery store shelves and trans fats.

If saturated fats were bad, we would have been doomed from birth since breast milk is compromised of mostly saturated fats.

Here is some information written by Dr's that specialized in lipids:

http://www.health-report.co.uk/saturated_fats_health_benefits.htm

Books to read:

http://www.amazon.com/Saturated-Fat-Save-Your-Life/dp/0941599493

http://www.amazon.com/Fats-Are-Good-You-Cholesterol/dp/1556436904/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1341849625&sr=1-1&keywords=saturated+fat

PaleoPath4Lyfe

To some of you fat may not be the enemy but animal fat is to me. Animal fat is dangerous due to my cholesterol and that chicken fat is saturated fat, and yes, it is the enemy. I choose not to take a pill so I can be healthy, I choose to be healthy instead.

Cooking the chicken WITH OUT the fat is way healthier for you because the other poster was right, it does seep into the chicken. You count the chicken as cooked with skin due to this.

So yes, although you are not eating the fat, you log it as chicken cooked with fat on.

Saturated fat has NOTHING to do with your cholesterol. Cholesterol that is eaten has nothing to do with high cholesterol.

I had high cholesterol when I was on a LOW fat, LOW cholesterol way of eating with sky high triglycerides to boot.

My cholesterol and triglycerides are WAY lower than they have been in years and I eat upwards of 60% fat every day with most of it being saturated fat.

Once again, FAT and especially SATURATED fat is not the enemy.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

It doesn't really matter if fat is the enemy or not,nit was a logging question. I agree that if it cooks in the fat, wheather or not it's good or bad, she would need to log it somehow.

I would leave the skin off if I didn't plan to eat it. I'm sure it won't ruin the recipe.

It does matter if it is the enemy when you have people posting things that are simply not true.

Anabelucci

LOL I thought this said a silly question about children!!!! I wouldn't recommend putting them in a crock pot!!! ;-)

LOL!!!!

SGreen134

p.s. to answer the question about the chicken, and not the children, I wouldn't worry about logging in the fat. I make chicken soup all the time, you the skin and marrow from the bones to flavor the soup. If you don't it's very very bland and you end up having to add lot's of salt, which is not the same or as good. yes, throw away the skin off of your portion before you eat.

Enjoy you chicken, and your children! ;-)

LOLOL! Thanks!

bcattoes

To some of you fat may not be the enemy but animal fat is to me. Animal fat is dangerous due to my cholesterol and that chicken fat is saturated fat, and yes, it is the enemy. I choose not to take a pill so I can be healthy, I choose to be healthy instead.

Cooking the chicken WITH OUT the fat is way healthier for you because the other poster was right, it does seep into the chicken. You count the chicken as cooked with skin due to this.

So yes, although you are not eating the fat, you log it as chicken cooked with fat on.

Saturated fat has NOTHING to do with your cholesterol. Cholesterol that is eaten has nothing to do with high cholesterol.

I had high cholesterol when I was on a LOW fat, LOW cholesterol way of eating with sky high triglycerides to boot.

My cholesterol and triglycerides are WAY lower than they have been in years and I eat upwards of 60% fat every day with most of it being saturated fat.

Once again, FAT and especially SATURATED fat is not the enemy.

This is not true for everyone. Dietary cholesterol has a minimal affect on blood cholesterol for most people, but for some it has a significant affect. Saturated fat in the diet can have an affect for even more people. Sugar can also have a big affect on it. But it's more about your total diet and lifestyle. A few personal anecdotes have little meaning when it comes to how food affects our bodies. The only way to really know is to monitor your diet and blood work. What is true for one is not necessarily true for another. Disease, ethnicity, lifestyle, diet, gender, age, exercise and other factors all can change the "rules".

Suzannejl

One more neat trick I learned from my Mom.

If you cook the meal the day before, the next day, when it's cool, u can skim the fat off the top with a large spoon and throw it away!

If you are eating it that day, use a paper towel and skim it off the top and throw that away.

Be sure to leave a little bit for flavoring