Perhaps a silly question about chicken

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.

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.

Interesting. I wonder how I lowered my cholesterol 60 points when I cut my saturated fat? LMAO I do not know your situation so I will not judge your diet or how you lowered your cholesterol but it does not take a rocket scientist to know that saturated animal fat is bad for you, period.

mmapags

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.

Interesting. I wonder how I lowered my cholesterol 60 points when I cut my saturated fat? LMAO I do not know your situation so I will not judge your diet or how you lowered your cholesterol but it does not take a rocket scientist to know that saturated animal fat is bad for you, period.

For genetic reasons, you may be a high responder. But don't project that on to rest of us. Because you have an issue with saturated fat and are part of a small minority that does, it doesn't nessesarily apply that animal fat "is bad for you, period". You are generalizing from the specific anecdotal evidence of your personal experience. That's bad logic and faulty science.

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.

Interesting. I wonder how I lowered my cholesterol 60 points when I cut my saturated fat? LMAO I do not know your situation so I will not judge your diet or how you lowered your cholesterol but it does not take a rocket scientist to know that saturated animal fat is bad for you, period.

For genetic reasons, you may be a high responder. But don't project that on to rest of us. Because you have an issue with saturated fat and are part of a small minority that does, it doesn't nessesarily apply that animal fat "is bad for you, period". You are generalizing from the specific anecdotal evidence of your personal experience. That's bad logic and faulty science.

Actually, "responder" is a term generally used for the minority for whom dietary cholesterol (not sat fat) has significant affect on blood cholesterol. Most saturated fats have a pretty significant affect for most people outside a controlled enviroment.

vingogly

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.

OK, here's a couple of articles that claim the fat in the meat goes into the skin when it's cooking, so if you remove the skin post cooking you're removing the fat ... combining that with skimming the fat off should remove most of the fat.

http://blogs.webmd.com/healthy-recipe-doctor/2008/07/hey-chicken-take-it-off-take-it-all-off.html
http://lowfatcooking.about.com/od/chickenrecipes/a/chickenbreasts.htm

Quoting the second article, "the meat doesn't absorb the fat from the skin". Some of the fat may remain in the meat, but how much? Do you have evidence that sufficient fat remains so that the chicken should be logged as chicken with skin? I've been unable to find any articles that make this claim ... everything I see says it's fine to cook with the skin and remove before eating, even for people with cholesterol/cardio problems (and I'm in the latter camp).

mmapags

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.

Interesting. I wonder how I lowered my cholesterol 60 points when I cut my saturated fat? LMAO I do not know your situation so I will not judge your diet or how you lowered your cholesterol but it does not take a rocket scientist to know that saturated animal fat is bad for you, period.

For genetic reasons, you may be a high responder. But don't project that on to rest of us. Because you have an issue with saturated fat and are part of a small minority that does, it doesn't nessesarily apply that animal fat "is bad for you, period". You are generalizing from the specific anecdotal evidence of your personal experience. That's bad logic and faulty science.

Actually, "responder" is a term generally used for the minority for whom dietary cholesterol (not sat fat) has significant affect on blood cholesterol. Most saturated fats have a pretty significant affect for most people outside a controlled enviroment.

And what is the concern about saturated fat if not the impact on cholesterol?? The Framingham Heart Study data would not agree with your statement regarding saturated fat. The study began in 1947 and is still ongoing. Despite a stated bias and predisposition to find a relationship between saturated fat and heart disease, they have not except in the case of high responders, obese individuals and subjects with high triglycerides.

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.

Interesting. I wonder how I lowered my cholesterol 60 points when I cut my saturated fat? LMAO I do not know your situation so I will not judge your diet or how you lowered your cholesterol but it does not take a rocket scientist to know that saturated animal fat is bad for you, period.

For genetic reasons, you may be a high responder. But don't project that on to rest of us. Because you have an issue with saturated fat and are part of a small minority that does, it doesn't nessesarily apply that animal fat "is bad for you, period". You are generalizing from the specific anecdotal evidence of your personal experience. That's bad logic and faulty science.

Actually, "responder" is a term generally used for the minority for whom dietary cholesterol (not sat fat) has significant affect on blood cholesterol. Most saturated fats have a pretty significant affect for most people outside a controlled enviroment.

And what is the concern about saturated fat if not the impact on cholesterol?? The Framingham Heart Study data would not agree with your statement regarding saturated fat. The study began in 1947 and is still ongoing. Despite a stated bias and predisposition to find a relationship between saturated fat and heart disease, they have not except in the case of high responders, obese individuals and subjects with high triglycerides.

Other studies have had conflicting results.