Steak or Salmon?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
steak house so I'd go with steak0
-
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!
You are talking about something *slightly* different. You are talking about what is probably more correctly referred to as a bone-in tenderloin, (or the top half of a porterhouse). The bone does indeed improve on the flavor of the otherwise boring tenderloin. When cooked as a "filet" it has little flavor on its own.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!
You are talking about something *slightly* different. You are talking about what is probably more correctly referred to as a bone-in tenderloin, (or the top half of a porterhouse). The bone does indeed improve on the flavor of the otherwise boring tenderloin. When cooked as a "filet" it has little flavor on its own.
true..
but I like a filet without the bone in too ...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!
You are talking about something *slightly* different. You are talking about what is probably more correctly referred to as a bone-in tenderloin, (or the top half of a porterhouse). The bone does indeed improve on the flavor of the otherwise boring tenderloin. When cooked as a "filet" it has little flavor on its own.
true..
but I like a filet without the bone in too ...
I always like the bone in...0 -
My thread turned into an argument about cancer, I feel like I've made it through some sort of MFP right of passage.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!
You are talking about something *slightly* different. You are talking about what is probably more correctly referred to as a bone-in tenderloin, (or the top half of a porterhouse). The bone does indeed improve on the flavor of the otherwise boring tenderloin. When cooked as a "filet" it has little flavor on its own.
true..
but I like a filet without the bone in too ...
I always like the bone in...
0 -
lauriekat1120 wrote: »My thread turned into an argument about cancer, I feel like I've made it through some sort of MFP right of passage.
there is always one....0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions