Is it true that tilapia has no nutritional value?

2»

Replies

  • cmtigger
    cmtigger Posts: 1,450 Member
    edited October 2017
    imanibelle wrote: »
    My dad says if I'm interested in improving my health I shouldn't be eating tilapia. He said, "It has no nutritional value." Is that true?

    A lot of nutritional stuff my dad said is either random, or outdated. I go with reading quality stuff and what my doctor says and just nod my head and do my own thing.

    It’s not my favorite fish. But if it’s cheap where you live and you need to save money, it’s still fish and a better choice than red meat every day. Just season it well.
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,640 Member
    Did your tilapia come with a nutrition label? Show it to him.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,345 Member
    Tilapia is a good protein source, has plenty of nutritional value and there's nothing wrong with eating it. With that said, it's probably my least favorite fish - can't stand the texture and it doesn't have much flavor at all, but that's just my personal preference/taste speaking. I can see why somebody would say "it's the fish of choice for people who don't like fish".
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,525 Member
    I've only had it once and I don't know if I was just unlucky but it tasted like mud. I'd think haddock or cod more palatable for non fish eaters, cod is what is typically used in fish fingers and who doesn't love a fish finger?!


    Me. :smile:

    As a child, I thought I hated fish and especially shellfish, but it turned out what I hated was breaded, fried, cooked-from-frozen fish and shellfish, which was the only way my mother ever served it when I was little (because she was feeding a large brood, several of whom had very unadventurous palates). Now, if you want to dredge a nice fresh fillet through some cornmeal before tossing it into a frying pan, I won't object.

    But if you like it have at it. All food, with the possible exception of alcohol depending on your viewpoint, has some nutritional value, even if it's just calories.


    ^^ This, absolutely. The whole thing of labelling foods as "nutritionally void" or "empty calories" drives me crazy. You see it so often in threads where people say they can't eat enough "healthy" foods to get anywhere near their calorie goals, often because they've restricted the list of acceptable "healthy" foods to the point that pretty much all they're eating is fibrous and/or watery vegetables and the volume and mass needed to get an adequate calorie intake is overwhelming. Other than water, calories are probably the most important nutrient, if you judge that by how quickly an excessive deficit in the nutrient is likely to lead to significant health impacts.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 7,707 Member
    edited October 2017
    I've only had it once and I don't know if I was just unlucky but it tasted like mud. I'd think haddock or cod more palatable for non fish eaters, cod is what is typically used in fish fingers and who doesn't love a fish finger?!


    Me. :smile:

    As a child, I thought I hated fish and especially shellfish, but it turned out what I hated was breaded, fried, cooked-from-frozen fish and shellfish, which was the only way my mother ever served it when I was little (because she was feeding a large brood, several of whom had very unadventurous palates). Now, if you want to dredge a nice fresh fillet through some cornmeal before tossing it into a frying pan, I won't object.

    I don't like fish fingers as there's too much bread, too much salt and too little fish in them. I do like a good breaded fish every now and then though (I compare nutritional labels). I just whack it in an oven dish, add potato, sweet potato and/or parsnips, some veggies and let it cook. In the end I add a few more veggies that don't need long cooking like cherry tomatoes or green beans. Serve with home made tsatsiki, humus or feta. It's really yummy!

  • RuNaRoUnDaFiEld
    RuNaRoUnDaFiEld Posts: 5,864 Member
    How old are you?

    Why is your Dad telling you which foods to eat?
  • MaybeLed
    MaybeLed Posts: 250 Member
    I've only had it once and I don't know if I was just unlucky but it tasted like mud. I'd think haddock or cod more palatable for non fish eaters, cod is what is typically used in fish fingers and who doesn't love a fish finger?!

    But if you like it have at it. All food, with the possible exception of alcohol depending on your viewpoint, has some nutritional value, even if it's just calories.

    I am having fish fingers for lunch, but I think it's pollock nowerdays....

    I've had it a couple of times, at a conference in a fairly posh hotel, and it was great. I still love sea bass best. With a lot of fish I think how you cook it matters enormously. However OP, if you like it, you eat it. I have perfected the eyeroll for people who comment on my food....
  • tinkerbellang83
    tinkerbellang83 Posts: 9,057 Member
    How old are you?

    Why is your Dad telling you which foods to eat?

    See OPs previous posts, there have been a few.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,373 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    maryannprt wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    imanibelle wrote: »
    My dad says if I'm interested in improving my health I shouldn't be eating tilapia. He said, "It has no nutritional value." Is that true?

    That's...weird. Did he ever say why just tilapia in particular as opposed to all fish?

    Most of the tilapia we eat is farm raised and there has been some question about farming practices and how healthy is fish raised in crowded conditions with routine antibiotic use, (mostly in China) much the same arguments people make about meat or poultry and farming practices for that. I've never heard that tilapia has no nutritional value, but that it's actively bad for you. I'm not saying I agree with that, only that I've heard those arguments. Do you spend extra for organic or cage free eggs, free range chicken, grass fed beef? You might consider the source of your fish, as well.

    When I want a lecture on what to eat I'll ask. The topic is the nutritional content of tilapia, which was posted above and is not anything close to zero.

    Actually, it was very much on topic, as it's pretty much what you hear about tilapia nowadays and OP's father might have misunderstood and figured that the fish having no nutritional value.
  • Lounmoun
    Lounmoun Posts: 8,427 Member
    You can look up the nutritional information and see that tilapia has nutrients.
    https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4731?n1={Qv=1}&fgcd=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=50&sort=default&qlookup=Tilapia&offset=&format=Full&new=&measureby=&Qv=1&ds=&qt=&qp=&qa=&qn=&q=&ing=

    If your tilapia is tasty or the best fish is a different question. That does not make it devoid of nutrients.
  • Sunnybrooke99
    Sunnybrooke99 Posts: 369 Member
    It’s worth it for the b vitamins alone.
  • mburgess458
    mburgess458 Posts: 480 Member
    I don't eat tilapia because I like other fish better and I have read time and time again that it isn't the best fish choice. It is much lower in omega 3 fats and higher in omega 6 fats (at least the much more common farm raised tilapia). We get plenty of omega 6 fats from other sources, omega 3 fats are the main reason to eat fish over chicken or other animal protein sources.

    My take is that tilapia is essentially the same as eating chicken. If you like tilapia better than chicken go for it.
  • collectingblues
    collectingblues Posts: 2,539 Member
    I mean, there's nothing wrong with tilapia. It's a boring fish source, but it's not nutritionally void. Very few things are (I side eye cotton candy and protein powder, but even pure carbs and pure protein sources have their place).

    Frankly, I'd rather eat a piece of salmon or tuna, but tilapia is perfectly fine.
  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,080 Member
    Francl27 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    maryannprt wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    imanibelle wrote: »
    My dad says if I'm interested in improving my health I shouldn't be eating tilapia. He said, "It has no nutritional value." Is that true?

    That's...weird. Did he ever say why just tilapia in particular as opposed to all fish?

    Most of the tilapia we eat is farm raised and there has been some question about farming practices and how healthy is fish raised in crowded conditions with routine antibiotic use, (mostly in China) much the same arguments people make about meat or poultry and farming practices for that. I've never heard that tilapia has no nutritional value, but that it's actively bad for you. I'm not saying I agree with that, only that I've heard those arguments. Do you spend extra for organic or cage free eggs, free range chicken, grass fed beef? You might consider the source of your fish, as well.

    When I want a lecture on what to eat I'll ask. The topic is the nutritional content of tilapia, which was posted above and is not anything close to zero.

    Actually, it was very much on topic, as it's pretty much what you hear about tilapia nowadays and OP's father might have misunderstood and figured that the fish having no nutritional value.

    Yep. I think what I've read is that eating farmed tilapia is no better for you nutritionally than eating a hamburger. Something about the fat profiles. I haven't researched this because I eat a lot of hamburgers and obviously don't care :). But they didn't say they were nutritionally void. I can see why there may have been some confusion.
  • clicketykeys
    clicketykeys Posts: 5,892 Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    I am NOT a fish person but the one time I tried it I found it tasteless and tough. I’ll take halibut or cod first.

    Nevertheless, no matter the taste, it’s a great source for protein.

    Halibut is delicious but RIDICULOUSLY expensive. A lot of places don't even carry it. Cod is more reasonable, but still up to twice as much as tilapia.
  • timtam163
    timtam163 Posts: 509 Member
    OP: It just sounds like a bizarre way for your dad to talk to you about nutrition, putting down everything you eat and not offer any constructive advice. I mean do you eat fruits and veggies? Maybe he's concerned you're not getting enough variety. But that's different than being concerned that you're eating a perfectly nutritious fish...
  • BusyRaeNOTBusty
    BusyRaeNOTBusty Posts: 7,165 Member
    It doesn't have as much omega-2s as Salmon or tuna, but it's still a low calorie protein source. And it's a lot cheaper than salmon.
    A 3.5-ounce serving of tilapia has a scant 0.13 grams of the long-chain omega-3 fats that fish are famous for. Although that puts it on a par with other lean seafood (catfish has 0.09 grams; shrimp, 0.06), it’s a long way from canned tuna (0.88) and sardines (at 0.98), and not even in the same ballpark as the omega-3 powerhouse that is salmon (at 2.36).

    Tilapia, in short, is an environmentally friendly, lean, low-calorie source of protein. We need all of those we can get.

    https://washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/tilapia-has-a-terrible-reputation-does-it-deserve-it/2016/10/24/4537dc96-96e6-11e6-bc79-af1cd3d2984b_story.html?utm_term=.f4299897df57