Pork tenderloin, a good alternative to chicken?
Replies
-
Pork tenderloin is one of the leanest cuts of meat, absorbs marinades really well, tastes delicious, and (IMO) is a little more upscale than chicken.
The rule used to be that it needed to be cooked well done but a few years ago the recommendations were revised and I believe anything above an internal temp of 135 is safe to eat.
We grill it often and it is very important to let the tenderloin rest before slicing it so that it stays juicy.
Sesame ginger pork tenderloin with Thai noodles and edamame is on my menu plan for this week!
May I have your recipe? Sounds so good.
Actually this time the pork will just be a packaged marinade that I have in the pantry (Lawry's Sesame Ginger) and the noodles will probably be some version of this recipe:
http://thecreeksidecook.com/spicy-peanut-noodles/#axzz3d9HEutDD
I also use this recipe quite a bit for the pork tenderloin when I want Asian flavors, it is just that this week I'm trying to use up things already in my pantry and I have that marinade all ready to go.
http://allrecipes.com/recipe/thai-quivering-tenderloins/detail.aspx
0 -
Canada Food Guide. I had to go check just in case. It recommends meat alternatives "often", and at least two servings of fish a week. No word about white meat, red meat, or chicken other than, ".....provide protein, fat and many other important nutrients including iron, zinc, magnesium and B vitamins..."0
-
*kitten* the haters
eat all the pork
yolo0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
I just love my digital meat thermometer and not eating overcooked meat anymore!
0 -
The healthfulness or otherwise of pork may depend what the pig was fed on. There are those who bang on about the high Omega-6 PUFA content of pork fat as a problem, where the pigs are corn fed. Pigs have simple digestion and the fat they eat is the fat they store on their bodies.
To piggyback on this, of concern to me is how the animals were treated. I love pork, but eat it far less after learning that pigs are as smart and sociable as dogs and the conditions and practices of factory farms. When I do buy it, I buy from producers that raised the pigs humanely, like Niman Ranch. Meat from a factory farm is not a good alternative for me.0 -
I live in Canada as well...chicken has been really cheap for NB'ers lately...so my freezer is stocked with chicken and pork...
Beef is expensive atm...22$ for 3 mediocre steaks...
We eat chicken mainly, then pork, then seafood/fish (husband isn't a fan of fish) and lastly beef...so I typically eat one type of meat 2x a week.
Once for dinner then leftovers for lunch the next day...
Pork is a bit higher in calories than chicken but otherwise yah eat it.0 -
I buy pork loin a lot too because it's cheap and very versatile. I even grind it up in my ninja blender and use it in place of ground beef or make homemade breakfast sausage. It's high in protein, low in fat and very flavorful.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
That said, Dad has a lousy diet and multiple risk factors...I'm pretty sure his red meat consumption (which is well over the current recommendations) is only one of many things that likely contributed to his illness. I like red meat as much as the next person, but watching what my parents go through with their health is quite enough to make me take nutritional guidelines reasonably seriously. I was, however, incorrect in believing that pork was a "white meat" as opposed to a "red meat" so I haven't been as careful as I thought I was. Back to the metaphorical drawing board!0 -
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
0 -
Anyone familiar with those red meat studies know if people were eating red meat AND veggies or red meat but few veggies? I remember wondering if there was more than one variable and the wrong one got blamed.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
This is what you actually said, which is a lot different than saying you'd choose the marginally increased odds of developing cancer due to red meat consumption. It was a pretty crass thing to say, IMO, as the daughter of a colon cancer survivor.DeguelloTex wrote: »As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.0 -
Well, given that eating red meat doesn't remotely guarantee cancer, it, at most, marginally increases the odds of getting it, I thought the meaning would be pretty clear. I guess not.DeguelloTex wrote: »
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
This is what you actually said, which is a lot different than saying you'd choose the marginally increased odds of developing cancer due to red meat consumption. It was a pretty crass thing to say, IMO, as the daughter of a colon cancer survivor.DeguelloTex wrote: »As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
I'll give your opinion about my crassness all the consideration it merits.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, given that eating red meat doesn't remotely guarantee cancer, it, at most, marginally increases the odds of getting it, I thought the meaning would be pretty clear. I guess not.DeguelloTex wrote: »
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
This is what you actually said, which is a lot different than saying you'd choose the marginally increased odds of developing cancer due to red meat consumption. It was a pretty crass thing to say, IMO, as the daughter of a colon cancer survivor.DeguelloTex wrote: »As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
I'll give your opinion about my crassness all the consideration it merits.
It was not at all clear. As the daughter of a mother who did not survive cancer, I also saw it is a, if not crass, then certainly not the cleverest thing to say. And judging by how agressively you defend yourself, I think you know it. The other poster did not say you are crass, but that you said something crass. Get the difference?
We can all say something incredibly stupid sometimes. The agony of others is not something to make light of.0 -
Wait, you're going to get all semantic on the difference between being crass and saying something crass, but then you're going to conflate the difference between between saying I'd take cancer over giving up red meat -- even if you take what I wrote absolutely literally -- with making light of someone's agony? Linguist heal thyself.Wiseandcurious wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, given that eating red meat doesn't remotely guarantee cancer, it, at most, marginally increases the odds of getting it, I thought the meaning would be pretty clear. I guess not.DeguelloTex wrote: »
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
This is what you actually said, which is a lot different than saying you'd choose the marginally increased odds of developing cancer due to red meat consumption. It was a pretty crass thing to say, IMO, as the daughter of a colon cancer survivor.DeguelloTex wrote: »As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
I'll give your opinion about my crassness all the consideration it merits.
It was not at all clear. As the daughter of a mother who did not survive cancer, I also saw it is a, if not crass, then certainly not the cleverest thing to say. And judging by how agressively you defend yourself, I think you know it. The other poster did not say you are crass, but that you said something crass. Get the difference?
We can all say something incredibly stupid sometimes. The agony of others is not something to make light of.
And, so we're all on the same page, I'm not interested in your experience or your opinion and won't lose a moment's sleep or change my worldview one iota because of either.
I've known people who've died via automobile, motorcycle, falling, gun, knife, Huntington's, cancer, stroke, blunt force trauma, IED, eating disorder, and I don't know what else. Hell, my dad has one kidney because of cancer and my paternal grandmother died of liver cancer. I don't have time to get all wound up about every potentially upsetting comment about all of that. If you do, live it up. Again, I'll give your opinion the consideration it merits.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Wait, you're going to get all semantic on the difference between being crass and saying something crass, but then you're going to conflate the difference between between saying I'd take cancer over giving up red meat -- even if you take what I wrote absolutely literally -- with making light of someone's agony? Linguist heal thyself.Wiseandcurious wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, given that eating red meat doesn't remotely guarantee cancer, it, at most, marginally increases the odds of getting it, I thought the meaning would be pretty clear. I guess not.DeguelloTex wrote: »
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
This is what you actually said, which is a lot different than saying you'd choose the marginally increased odds of developing cancer due to red meat consumption. It was a pretty crass thing to say, IMO, as the daughter of a colon cancer survivor.DeguelloTex wrote: »As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
I'll give your opinion about my crassness all the consideration it merits.
It was not at all clear. As the daughter of a mother who did not survive cancer, I also saw it is a, if not crass, then certainly not the cleverest thing to say. And judging by how agressively you defend yourself, I think you know it. The other poster did not say you are crass, but that you said something crass. Get the difference?
We can all say something incredibly stupid sometimes. The agony of others is not something to make light of.
And, so we're all on the same page, I'm not interested in your experience or your opinion and won't lose a moment's sleep or change my worldview one iota because of either.
I've known people who've died via automobile, motorcycle, falling, gun, knife, Huntington's, cancer, stroke, blunt force trauma, IED, eating disorder, and I don't know what else. Hell, my dad has one kidney because of cancer and my paternal grandmother died of liver cancer. I don't have time to get all wound up about every potentially upsetting comment about all of that. If you do, live it up. Again, I'll give your opinion the consideration it merits.
Just stop contradicting yourself. I think everyone would be fine with that.0 -
And I contradicted myself how, exactly?atypicalsmith wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Wait, you're going to get all semantic on the difference between being crass and saying something crass, but then you're going to conflate the difference between between saying I'd take cancer over giving up red meat -- even if you take what I wrote absolutely literally -- with making light of someone's agony? Linguist heal thyself.Wiseandcurious wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, given that eating red meat doesn't remotely guarantee cancer, it, at most, marginally increases the odds of getting it, I thought the meaning would be pretty clear. I guess not.DeguelloTex wrote: »
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
This is what you actually said, which is a lot different than saying you'd choose the marginally increased odds of developing cancer due to red meat consumption. It was a pretty crass thing to say, IMO, as the daughter of a colon cancer survivor.DeguelloTex wrote: »As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
I'll give your opinion about my crassness all the consideration it merits.
It was not at all clear. As the daughter of a mother who did not survive cancer, I also saw it is a, if not crass, then certainly not the cleverest thing to say. And judging by how agressively you defend yourself, I think you know it. The other poster did not say you are crass, but that you said something crass. Get the difference?
We can all say something incredibly stupid sometimes. The agony of others is not something to make light of.
And, so we're all on the same page, I'm not interested in your experience or your opinion and won't lose a moment's sleep or change my worldview one iota because of either.
I've known people who've died via automobile, motorcycle, falling, gun, knife, Huntington's, cancer, stroke, blunt force trauma, IED, eating disorder, and I don't know what else. Hell, my dad has one kidney because of cancer and my paternal grandmother died of liver cancer. I don't have time to get all wound up about every potentially upsetting comment about all of that. If you do, live it up. Again, I'll give your opinion the consideration it merits.
Just stop contradicting yourself. I think everyone would be fine with that.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
Closer to 0.049%.
Marginal risk increase was seen to be 18% for processed meats and *not significant* for pork at higher than 2 times a week. According to the study already posted above.
So the additional risk for processed meat would be .,.. 0.042% * 0.18% + 0.042% .... Eh, not even worth thinking about.
Pass the coppa.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 897 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions