What are the nutrition positives/negatives of pork?

kickit · Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:03 am

Just been wondering about this lately, and I have done some research, but still unsure. My mom likes to cook pork (usually chops, tenderloin, or roast) when she doesn't feel like having chicken, fish, or whatever else. She thinks the pork is good for you, as it is "the other white meat." I don't disagree, but I also don't know. I've always thought of pork as a once-in-a-while type food, as I was under the impression that it had some negative aspects to it.. as opposed to lean meats such as chicken and fish. The research I've done on it tends to show that pork (the lean varieties) is not very high in any of the bad stuff I had once thought it would have.

Anyway, was hoping someone could shed some light on this for me.

Also, what about steak, and lamb? These are other topics that have come up at the dinner table recently.

I know all the SB guidelines, so I do not need help with any of that info, as I know that they are allowed foods if they meet the criteria. But I am wondering in terms of them in what I previously mentioned, as well as in relation to each other (i.e. chicken vs. pork vs. steak vs. lamb).

Any info is greatly appreciated!

Thanks

-Kickit

luvs_torun · Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:20 am

As long as the meat falls within the lean meat guidelines (and you follow the 3 ounce portion at a time rule).... chicken, pork, steak, lamb is fine.... I would guess there would be no "versus"...
You may have to look harder to find pork, steak, and lamb that fit the guideline as opposed to a chicken breast.... but you can find cuts that will work.

Have them all..... the more "varied" the food on your diet.. the more apt you are to stick with it.

ami · Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:44 am

I agreee, as long as the meats are low in saturated fats from "lean" cuts, they are all fine :lol:

I think it's more a matter of preference and even a matter of cultural or tradition to think that pork is higher in saturated fats than other meats.
In some cultures/religions pork is considerate "dirty", and it's not allowed to eat.

For that matter, lattley you can also buy bison meat and if it's free range it's even leanear than beef. Bison burgers are the "in" thing in some parts of this country right now.

In some other cultures they also consume rabbits, goats and other wild animals. In this country some people eat elk and venison, both very lean meats. Duck and goose are considerated high in saturated fats and not allowed in this diet.

Interesting research!

RedRox · Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:54 am

Most of the negatives of pork relate to the way it was raised and processed many. many years ago and what they are willing to eat. Pork used to be susceptible to carrying a parasite, trichinae, that caused a disease called trichinosis, which is why pork used to be cooked until it was well done and tough as leather. The parasite is actually killed at 138 degrees F (according to the pork folks), and you can actually safely cook pork and still have it pink and juicy from 145-155 F. Modern farmiing and knowldedge has pretty much eliminated this as a concern. Modern 'pork factories" are not the best neighbors though, and much like any of our other animal sources of protein, are designed for maximum yields in minimal spaces which has the potential for some problems at some point I think. Still you rarely see recalled pork products.

It's also still not kosher! ;)

kickit · Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:09 am

Thank you all for the helpful info! I really appreciate it. This is very interesting stuff and I enjoyed reading all your replies. I will be sure to share this all with the family. I am a college senior currently commuting to school, so the family is home together for dinner many of the nights during the week... so we try to have a good variety of meals. Ever since September we've all been following the SB WOE, and I agree with what Luvs_torun said.. variety is definitely key!

Again, thanks for all the info, very interesting reading what you guys had to say. If anyone else has more input, I'd be happy to read it.

Thanks

-Kickit

RedRox · Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:11 pm

Finally found this page at MizFrog's Pad: http://www.mizfrogspad.com/Diet/SELvsSBD.htm

Scroll down to see her views on pork if you like. (they are decidedly anti-pork!) Just as background, her site started out as a SBD resource site until the SBD legal team contacted her about copyright infringement and had her remove all SBD references from her site. I think she had been modifying her SBD plan all along, but I think her site took on more of an anti-SBD flavor after that, although her SEL (sensible eating for life) plan still shares a lot of commonalities with SBD and actually I find many of her differences with SBD valid in a lot of instances. I also am not a fan of Dr. Mercola and his views, so sites that use him as a resource I tend to view negatively as well. Just so you know where she and I are both coming from! ;) Everyone's "Truth" is a bit different and based on our own perspectives and experiences.

kickit · Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:04 am

RedRox wrote: Finally found this page at MizFrog's Pad: http://www.mizfrogspad.com/Diet/SELvsSBD.htm

Scroll down to see her views on pork if you like. (they are decidedly anti-pork!) Just as background, her site started out as a SBD resource site until the SBD legal team contacted her about copyright infringement and had her remove all SBD references from her site. I think she had been modifying her SBD plan all along, but I think her site took on more of an anti-SBD flavor after that, although her SEL (sensible eating for life) plan still shares a lot of commonalities with SBD and actually I find many of her differences with SBD valid in a lot of instances. I also am not a fan of Dr. Mercola and his views, so sites that use him as a resource I tend to view negatively as well. Just so you know where she and I are both coming from! ;) Everyone's "Truth" is a bit different and based on our own perspectives and experiences.

Wow, definitely some differing opinions of pork on that site! Thanks very much for the link RedRox. From what you said in your post, it seems as though you do not necessarily agree with what she has written about pork there, correct? You always seem to have a very good understanding with everything discussed around here, so I value your opinion on this issue very much. It seems like what she says may have once been a problem in the past, but is no longer a common one today?

RedRox · Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:18 am

I really don't know where she is coming from on the pork issue. I think pork tenderloin is one of the great versatile meats going and I've never gotten sick from it, even cooking it to 145 F or so. And I think canadian bacon is a somewhat more healthy alternative than turkey bacon and have a slice pretty much every day. I just wanted to give some background on her and my potential biases.

IndigoElectron · Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:42 am

I like pork too and eat it fairly regularly. I don't eat bacon a huge amount but that's mainly because it's so salty.

I looked at some of the links she had at the bottom of that page and really couldn't believe what I was seeing! It's amazing what misconceptions people have about the SB diet - there is mention on some of these sites of it being high in animal fat and unhealthy because it apparently severely limits carbs including beans and vegetables and dairy. But that's complete rubbish - most of my diet is made up of non-starchy vegetables, I do eat fat but it's limited to a tbsp with each meal, and I eat plenty of beans and dairy. And I do eat a fair bit of protein but it's lean protein and I always go for a 3-4oz portion and only have more if I'm hungry. I honestly feel this is the healthiest I've ever eaten and I'm much happier on this eating plan than the low fat/high carb diet I was eating before.

But I have to say, if I hadn't discovered this wonderful forum, I may have had those misconceptions myself. I know Dr Agatston has brought out a new book, and I really hope he's rewritten it to explain what the diet is REALLY about. There really should be something like the 'adapting your meal plan' which is on this forum, and which clearly explains the guidelines we should follow. The book on its own does seem to rely quite a lot on animal protein, and the transitioning guidelines aren't clear either.

RedRox · Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:34 pm

hehehe.... one of my infamous early "rants" on here was a rather lengthy diatribe refuting each of Mercola's "points" if that was one of the articles you read. He also offers a "healthy eating" book, so has his own agenda to advance at the expense of Dr. A. (and vice versa). I did some research into him and some "truth on the web" kind of website gave him one of the lowest credibility ratings at that time for using a lot of half truths and twisting stats to his advantage so I really haven't paid a lot of attention to him since then and tend to dismiss those who use him as a resource. Lots of people seem to follow his advice though. He is certainly on the "extreme" end of the foods we should eat spectrum, but I also think Dr. A is a bit too much in the "safe" zone at times with whatever is FDA approved and generally accepted in the medical community. I do agree with many of MizFrog's adaptations, just don't get the pork issue. Just wanted to provide another side of the arguement, whether I subscribe to it or not. I think we should all do as much research as possible and make our own decisions based on our own beliefs and perceived "truths". MizFrog has done that for herself and I certainly can't fault her for that, simply because she arrived at a different choice than I did!

luvs_torun · Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:57 pm

kickit... you also need to keep in mind that MizFrog.... was just a woman who started her own website, (she has no medical background)... and compiled information for her site that complied with her beliefs....
She put her own spin on South Beach... (and in her defense.. she was always upfront about that...)

You can pretty much find info (pro, con, stuff that makes you go :shock: ) on anything on the 'net.... :D

IndigoElectron · Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:17 pm

Yes, Dr Mercola's site was one of the more outlandish, though a couple of the others criticized SB too, for the same reasons, which is a shame because if people understood what it was really about, they might give it more of a chance.

My general belief regarding food is that most things in moderation are ok, and if we listen too much to all the different 'food scares' that crop up in the media, we'd end up eating virtually nothing! You can't live your life being worried about what might or might not happen to you - I remember reading an article a few years ago that said statistically you're more likely to die fishing than taking an ecstasy tablet! I'm not advocating drug use, but it just goes to show that ANYTHING is potentially dangerous.

AleciaBneedstobefreed · Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:15 pm

I never thought a whole lot about it but RedRox is right. You don't see alot of pork recalls and the like. I think it has alot to do with how it's prepared for all meats. If you cook a fatty roast in a pot you're going to consume alot more fat than if you prepared the same cut as a steak on the grill.


Page 1 of 1