Perhaps a silly question about chicken

Options
2»

Replies

  • vingogly
    vingogly Posts: 1,785 Member
    Options
    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
    Lesa_Sass Posts: 2,213 Member
    Options
    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
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    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
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    Options
    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
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    Options
    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
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    Options
    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
    Anabelucci Posts: 22 Member
    Options
    LOL I thought this said a silly question about children!!!! I wouldn't recommend putting them in a crock pot!!! ;-)

    LOL!!!! :)
  • SGreen134
    SGreen134 Posts: 136 Member
    Options
    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
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    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
    Suzannejl Posts: 212
    Options
    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
  • Lesa_Sass
    Lesa_Sass Posts: 2,213 Member
    Options
    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
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    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
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    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
    vingogly Posts: 1,785 Member
    Options
    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
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    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
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories