Bacon - 60% PUFA (Wikipedia), and heart disease connection

Bacon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nutrients

Four 14-gram (0.5 oz) slices of bacon together contain 7.45 grams (0.26 oz) of fat, of which about half is monounsaturated, a third is saturated and a sixth is polyunsaturated, and 7.72 grams (0.27 oz) of protein.^[35] Four pieces of bacon can also contain up to 800 mg of sodium, which is roughly equivalent to 1.92 grams of salt. The fat and protein content varies depending on the cut and cooking method.

Health concerns

A 2007 study by Columbia University suggests a link between eating cured meats (such as bacon) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The preservative sodium nitrite is the probable cause,^[36][37] and bacon made without added nitrites is available. Bacon is usually high in salt and saturated fat; excessive consumption of both is related to a variety of health problems. See the articles on saturated fat and salt for more details.

Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health found in 2010 that eating processed meats such as bacon, preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or with the addition of chemical preservatives, was associated with an increased risk of both heart disease and diabetes.

The same association was not found for unprocessed meat.^[38]

Lard versus olive oil - Paleo forum discussion (...all day everyday?)

bacon all day everyday?

Extract:

Some authors, including the highly-respected Dr. Michael Eades, compare the fatty acid profile of bacon to olive oil and conclude that they are very similar. A few percentage points of monounsaturated fat (MUFA) or saturated fat (SFA) aside, we’ll agree. Furthermore, the total polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) content of bacon fat and olive oil are almost identical. (Weird, right?)  So here’s where we come back to having a consistent thought process for our recommendations.

We generally recommend against cooking with olive oil… so why would we champion cooking with bacon?

Here’s the back-story.  We (and lots of Smart People like Chris Kresser and Chris Masterjohn ) recommend aggressively limiting your polyunsaturated fat intake because those fragile fats undergo peroxidation most easily (compared to MUFA and SFA).  The oxidation process forms damaging free radicals that promote inflammation, contribute to aging, and increase the risk of cancer.  Heating these fats and exposing them to air (oxygen) dramatically increases the rate that these fats oxidize. So, logically, we recommend that you avoid heating or cooking with fats (like olive oil) that contain these fragile, prone-to-oxidation PUFAs.

So if we believe olive oil should not be heated, and bacon and olive oil have almost the same PUFA content, why would we portray bacon as a healthy choice, given that no one eats their bacon carpaccio-style? Bacon is generally cooked in the open air at fairly high temperatures until “well done”, which smells like oxidized PUFA to us.  (And given that their PUFA profile is practically identical, it also doesn’t make sense for us to recommend against cooking with olive oil, but then to give cooking with bacon fat the green light.)

The kicker is that the amount of total fat (and thus PUFA, as a percentage of the total) in a manly-sized serving of bacon is much greater than you’d get from a tablespoon-sized serving of olive oil. (Remember, it’s not just about the ratio of 6:3 in any given food or meal – it’s more about the total dose.)  So dissing EVOO for cooking but crispifying a pound of bacon every morning – or frying all your food in bacon fat – just doesn’t add up to us.

Quote from: avelin on May 28, 2011, 08:45:58 PM

I think they are being very selective about the information they are presenting in that comparison.

In terms of polyunsaturated fats, yes, commercial bacon fat - and in fact all fat from commercial pigs - is similar to olive oil.  However, contrary to their scare tactics on polyunsaturated fats, that's because both are fairly low in polyunsaturated fats, and both have reasonable albeit not great omega 3:6 ratios - that's why olive oil is often regarded as the least bad of nonpaleo oils.  They also neglect to mention that the fat that actually stays on the bacon is the fat that hasn't gotten hot enough to melt off, so it's far from the temperatures required for oxidation - and if you cook bacon correctly, over low heat, the fat that melts out doesn't get to those temperatures either.

Polyunsaturated fats are only part of the picture, though.  Saturated fat is also important, because the saturation of fat is strongly related to cooking stability.  The article leaves out the fact that pork fat has about three times the saturated fat of olive oil, a major difference.  That's what makes pork fat so much stabler when used as cooking oil, a difference with which I've had plenty of personal experience.  They also leave out the smoke points - 370F for lard, 320F for extra virgin olive oil.

And of course, all that neglects the fundamental argument for paleo:  it protects us against the problems we don't know about, not just the problems we do know about.  Pigs on the hoof are delicious and were eaten by paleolithic humans. 

Now, is grass finished beef tallow even better for cooking?  In terms of omega 3:6 ratios, it's certainly better than commercial pork fat.  On the other hand, I've found even grass finished beef tallow to be a little too saturated to be ideal for some cooking applications.

The Bacon Bummer - Whole9

The Bacon Bummer | Whole9 | Let us change your life.
by Whole9

Extract:

The Bummer Part

You see, bacon, however delicious it might be, has some downsides.

First, factory-farmed bacon (approximately 95% of the bacon purchased in the US, according to 2007 data) is, nutritionally speaking, garbage. It’s the fattiest cut of an inhumanely treated, poorly fed, often sickly animal, and it’s loaded with unhealthy (i.e. contaminated) fats, preservatives and additives. We’d venture to call it toxic meat, but then again, we love hyperbole. Nonetheless, we think nobody should eat factory-farmed bacon – ever. 

Even in family farms where the animals are treated well, their diets are not always conducive to our optimal health. Even “pastured” pigs’ diets are often supplemented with corn, grains and soybeans. This makes this kind of pastured pork the equivalent of grain-fed cattle that get to eat a little bit of grass – and we would not designate that meat as optimally healthy for you. Because we believe high-quality, grass-finished, organic meat from ruminants (like beef, lamb and elk) is the most healthy protein source available, promoting lots of lesser quality meats like bacon – even from mostly pastured pork – doesn’t make much sense. (Nonetheless, this is not a case against pork. In a rotation of high-quality meats, 100% pastured, organic pork may have its place.)

So why aren’t we promoting 100% pastured, organic, family-farmed bacon?

Here’s where our experience comes in. Historically, when we give people a nutritional inch, they take a nutritional mile. And like a Paleo version of “telephone”, our message tends to degrade the further it spreads. When we mention that we use 100% egg white powder when we travel, people take that to mean, “It’s okay to drink protein shakes!” We say pastured, organic, clarified butter is a good food choice, they pass along, “Whole9 says eat more butter!” Which is exactly why you’ll never hear us mention bacon.

So if we mentioned 100% pastured, organic, nitrate/nitrite-free , family-farmed bacon in every web article, Facebook post and Twitter tweet, well… readers, followers, and workshop attendees would hear (and tell others), “Whole9 say eat bacon!” And then they’d tell their friends, family members and blog readers to eat more bacon, and then you’ve got a whole group of Paleo newbies buying pounds of Oscar Mayer – and consuming what could, in fact, be the unhealthiest meat product out there (besides Spam) in copious amounts. Oops. So that’s one reason we don’t pimp bacon.

6:3 (You Knew We’d Go There)

Some authors, including the highly-respected Dr. Michael Eades, compare the fatty acid profile of bacon to olive oil and conclude that they are very similar. A few percentage points of monounsaturated fat (MUFA) or saturated fat (SFA) aside, we’ll agree. Furthermore, the total polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) content of bacon fat and olive oil are almost identical. (Weird, right?) So here’s where we come back to having a consistent thought process for our recommendations.

We generally recommend against cooking with olive oil… so why would we champion cooking with bacon?

Here’s the back-story. We (and lots of Smart People like Chris Kresser and Chris Masterjohn ) recommend aggressively limiting your polyunsaturated fat intake because those fragile fats undergo peroxidation most easily (compared to MUFA and SFA). The oxidation process forms damaging free radicals that promote inflammation, contribute to aging, and increase the risk of cancer. Heating these fats and exposing them to air (oxygen) dramatically increases the rate that these fats oxidize. So, logically, we recommend that you avoid heating or cooking with fats (like olive oil) that contain these fragile, prone-to-oxidation PUFAs.

So if we believe olive oil should not be heated, and bacon and olive oil have almost the same PUFA content, why would we portray bacon as a healthy choice, given that no one eats their bacon carpaccio-style? Bacon is generally cooked in the open air at fairly high temperatures until “well done”, which smells like oxidized PUFA to us. (And given that their PUFA profile is practically identical, it also doesn’t make sense for us to recommend against cooking with olive oil, but then to give cooking with bacon fat the green light.)

The kicker is that the amount of total fat (and thus PUFA, as a percentage of the total) in a manly-sized serving of bacon is much greater than you’d get from a tablespoon-sized serving of olive oil. (Remember, it’s not just about the ratio of 6:3 in any given food or meal – it’s more about the total dose.) So dissing EVOO for cooking but crispifying a pound of bacon every morning – or frying all your food in bacon fat – just doesn’t add up to us.

Delicous Isn’t Good Enough.

Our concern is not just with the amount of – or 6:3 ratio of – pastured vs. conventional bacon – it’s not just about the fat. (And we don’t really want to debate the potential harm of nitrates/nitrites that are commonly used to preserve bacon. That smacks of justification.) The final reason we don’t promote bacon is because even if you buy the uncured, organic, 100% pastured, nitrate-free stuff, it’s still not your best protein choice. (It doesn’t even make our Top Ten, in fact.) Amy Kubal, RD, says “Many consider bacon a quality source of protein, but this is not necessarily the case compared to beef or chicken. In fact, bacon is often just as much fat as protein.

Bacon is delicious – don’t get me wrong. It’s my favorite ‘condiment’ and should be treated as just that – a condiment. A slice or two every now and then is great, but as an everyday protein option, you can do better.”

Jake 23 May, 2011 at 10:50 am # 

Cook bacon in the microwave between 4 sheets of paper towels. PUFAs have a very low melting point and they flow out to be absorbed by the paper towels. The saturated fat stays in the bacon.

Scottish pork taboo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bacon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scottish pork taboo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scottish pork taboo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Scottish pork taboo was Donald Alexander Mackenzie's phrase for discussing an aversion to pork amongst Scots, particularly Highlanders, which he believed to stem from an ancient taboo. Several writers who confirm that there was a prejudice against pork, or a superstitious attitude to pigs, do not see it in terms of a taboo related to an ancient cult. Any prejudice is generally agreed to have been fading by 1800. Some writers attribute a scarcity or dislike of pork in certain periods to a shortage of pig fodder.

Contents [hide] 1 Donald Mackenzie's ideas 1.1 Writers cited by Mackenzie 2 Other writers referring to a prejudice against pork 3 Two writers disputing Donald Mackenzie's theories 4 See also 5 Notes 6 References 7 Further reading

[edit] Donald Mackenzie's ideas

He gave a lecture on the Scottish pork taboo in 1920^[1] when he explained his idea that prejudices against pork-eating could be traced back to a centuries-old religious cult. When he published these theories in the 1930s he suggested the taboo was imported to Scotland in pre-Roman times by Celtic mercenaries, influenced by the cult of Attis in Anatolia. (The cult of Attis did not abstain permanently from pork; it was a purification for their ceremonies.^[2])
He dismissed any possibility that the pork taboo originated from a literal reading of the Bible, and disputed this with various arguments, noting that early Christian missionaries did not snub pork. He conceded that there was archaeological evidence of pigs being eaten in prehistoric Scotland, but suggested this might have come from pork-eating peoples living near others who did observe the taboo, or be related to ceremonial use of pigs. Later pork production was for export, not for local use, just as eels were caught to send to the English market, while they were unacceptable as food in Scotland. The taboo died out in the Lowlands earlier than in the Highlands.
Other Folklorists, such as Isabel Grant, have accepted this theory of a taboo.^[3]

[edit] Writers cited by Mackenzie

In addition to proposing ideas developed from studying the mythology and folk-lore of Scotland and other cultures, Mackenzie quoted writers of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Walter Scott referred to Scottish Highlanders' dislike of pork in more than one book,^[4] and around 1814 explained that

Pork or swine’s flesh, in any shape, was, till of late years, much abominated by the Scotch, nor is it yet a favourite food amongst them. King Jamie carried this prejudice to England, and is known to have abhorred pork almost as much as he did tobacco. ^[5]

Scott's remark that Ben Jonson "recorded" the king's aversion to pork in his masque The Gipsies Metamorphosed, when the king has his hand read, is based on these words:

You should, by this line,
Love a horse and a hound, but no part of a swine.

Samuel Johnson found an "abhorrence" of pork and bacon on Skye in the 1770s.

It is not very easy to fix the principles upon which mankind have agreed to eat some animals, and reject others; and as the principle is not evident, it is not uniform. […] The vulgar inhabitants of Sky, I know not whether of the other islands, have not only eels, but pork and bacon in abhorrence, and accordingly I never saw a hog in the Hebrides, except one at Dunvegan.^[6]

Mackenzie suggested that a verse in the English satirical song The Brewer from A Collection of Loyal Songs referred to the taboo:

The Jewish Scots that scorn to eat
The flesh of swine and Brewer's beat
'Twas the sight of this hogshead made 'em retreat
Which nobody can deny!

He believed that this, and other comments associating Scots with Jews, confirm the existence of the taboo, but have nothing to do with its origin.
He described a superstition about touching or saying "cauld airn" (cold iron) when pigs are mentioned. This was discussed by Dean Ramsay, and is also included in Walter McGregor's Notes on the folk-lore of the north-east of Scotland (Folklore Society 1881). ^[7]

Among the many superstitious notions and customs prevalent among the lower orders of the fishing towns on the east coast of Fife, till very recently, that class entertained a great horror of swine . . . .^[8]

Mackenzie disagreed with Edward Burt, whose Letters from a Gentleman in the North of Scotland (1754)^[9] discusses an “aversion” to pork in the Highlands, but says it is not “superstitious”.

[edit] Other writers referring to a prejudice against pork

Bishop John Lesley's History of Scotland talks of "our cuntrie peple" having "lytle plesure" in pork in the 1570s. ^[10]
At least four ministers writing about their parishes for the Statistical Accounts of Scotland in the 1790s speak of a prejudice which is starting to fade: for instance, "The deep rooted prejudice against swine's flesh is now removed: most of the farmers rear some of that species, which not 30 years ago, they held in the utmost detestation." (Ardchattan, County of Argyle) Account of 1791-99, volume 6, page 177)^[11]
20th century historian Christopher Smout speaks of a "a universal superstitious prejudice".^[12]
An archaeological survey of pork consumption in Scotland by the Society of Antiquities in Scotland in 2000 states: "Whether there is any archaeological evidence of this prejudice against pigs, for whatever reason, is open to question." and that "During the medieval period, it has been noted that rural sites contained more pig bones than urban sites, and that the lowest relative frequencies come from the most southerly of the burghs considered, Peebles and Perth. This contradicts the notion that it was the ‘Highlanders’ who abhorred pork, unless it is assumed that, despite this dislike, they continued to produce it for sale to others."^[13]

[edit] Two writers disputing Donald Mackenzie's theories

The historian William Mackay Mackenzie published his thoughts in the Scotsman letters pages (8 October 1921) as part of a long-running debate arising from D. A. Mackenzie's lecture in 1920. While agreeing there had been a "sporadic prejudice" against pork in parts of Scotland, and offering illustrations of this, he was against the idea of a link to a "religious cult". He saw economic factors at work between 1500 and 1800 which would discourage pig-keeping. He cited several examples of pork consumption in the Middle Ages, and described a "temporary lapse" when "the great forests disappeared from Scotland".
In 1983 the American anthropologist Eric B. Ross put forward arguments based on a detailed study of Scottish agricultural history , and asserted the value of cultural materialism rooted in evolutionary anthropology for studying dietary customs, thus avoiding explanations based on "relatively esoteric" beliefs. Because of deforestation there was a loss of beech mast and acorns for feeding pigs, and it was not until the late 18th century that potatoes were produced in sufficient quantity to offer a useful alternative. Throughout this gap in pork consumption by the general population, many of the Scottish upper classes continued to eat the meat.^{[citation needed]}

"In the years of the eighteenth century and probably earlier, swine were rarely raised in Scotland, particularly in the Scottish Highlands, and subsequent writers have gone so far as to postulate the operation of a taboo on the eating of pork. Unfortunately there is almost nothing known today about local sentiments of that era, and we have only the intellectual rationalizations of educated writers who all too easily found an explanation for the scarcity of pigs in the assumption that a 'foolish prejudice' was at work."^[14]

[edit] See also

• Horse meat
• Halal
• Kashrut
• Taboo food and drink

[edit] Notes

1. ^ Lecture at the Celtic Congress in Edinburgh 26 May 1920
2. ^ Emperor Julian; Hymn to the Mother of the Gods 177B, LCL, 1913, vol I.
3. ^ Ross, p. 99
4. ^ Fortunes of Nigel, Rob Roy, Waverley
5. ^ Waverley, footnote to Chapter 20
6. ^ A Journey to the Western Isles of Scotland (1775)
7. ^ Cited by PWF Brown
8. ^ Reminiscences of Scottish Life and Character (1874)
9. ^ pp117 -118 in the 1822 edition
10. ^ Translated from Latin into Scots by James Dalrymple in 1596, published in Edinburgh in 1895, quoted by WM Mackenzie
11. ^ Also Lesmahagow in Lanarkshire, Kiltearn in Ross and Cromarty and Longforgan in Perthshire
12. ^ Ross cites Smout's A History of the Scottish People 1560-1830, p 132
13. ^ p.13 http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_130/130_705_724.pdf
14. ^ Eric B. Ross The Riddle of the Scottish Pig op cit.

[edit] References

• P. W. F. Brown, The Luxuriant Pig in Folklore, volume 76, no. 4 (Winter 1965), pp 288-300; JSTOR link
• Donald A. Mackenzie, Scottish folk-lore and folk life: studies in race, culture and tradition (Blackie 1935)
• Eric B. Ross The Riddle of the Scottish Pig in BioScience, volume 33, no. 2 (Feb 1983), pp 99-106; JSTOR link
• Scotsman archives
• Statistical Accounts of Scotland

[edit] Further reading

• Donald A. Mackenzie, Wonder Tales from Scottish Myth and Legend - Introduction: "...pigs were, it seems, sacred animals..."
• Donald A. Mackenzie, Egyptian Myth and Legend, chapter 5: "The Devil Pig in Egypt and Scotland"
• A Collection of Loyal Songs