Tuna in a can, Good or bad ?
- 06-15-2005, 04:33 PM
Tuna in a can, Good or bad ?
I've been eating a can of Tuna just about every day for the past 2 months.... This is just part of my protein intake. Someone told me yesterday about the mercury in fish and said it may not be a good idea to eat so much tuna.... I've heard about the mercury, but I'm wondering if it will effect my health if I keep eating it every day.
- 06-15-2005, 04:44 PM
Originally Posted by Jim Mills
06-15-2005, 04:55 PM
06-15-2005, 05:05 PM
albacore? Guess I will have to buy a different brand.... That's the one I've been eating.Originally Posted by Spitdeath
06-15-2005, 11:13 PM
1 can a day is more than I'd be comfortable with eating. FWIW, I think it was Dr. D that suggested eating calcium in the form of antacids with tuna. Have you guys tried canned salmon or the little herring fish steaks? The fish steaks are pretty good, but, damn they'll clear out a room!
06-16-2005, 12:00 AM
06-16-2005, 12:34 AM
06-16-2005, 01:43 AM
hopefully its not too bad as I used to eat 3-5 cans daily during work when I was cutting and had nothing else to bring to work to eat...:-/
PS: Try canned chicken breast...tastes almost the same...just make sure you get the low sodium one. I seem to like it a lot and it is a change from tuna.
06-16-2005, 01:52 AM
06-16-2005, 01:16 PM
06-16-2005, 01:20 PM
Kind of defeats the purpose then seeing that canned tuna is at least twice as cheap as canned chicken.Originally Posted by CarryOnTheChaos
06-16-2005, 01:25 PM
I used to eat 6 cans/day for 6 months straight....oh, the humanity...I can't even stand to look at that stuff anymore...uhhhhh.
06-16-2005, 01:28 PM
06-16-2005, 01:47 PM
lol, at 6 cans a day for one week, with an average 8grams of protein equaling one oz. I was eating approx. 168oz. of light tuna each week. That's when I was 230lbs. or so, so my mercury exposure was 780%!!!! hOLY ****, MON...Originally Posted by B5150
Average should be under 100%. pretty soon my poop is gonna start to glow...lol. Ah well, all in a day;s work, right?? lol.
06-16-2005, 02:24 PM
06-16-2005, 02:51 PM
This issue has been talked about for years. It's been investigated by several outside news sources. Basically, from what I remember, the FDA had strict guidelines and inspections of the tuna/fish industry. Then, for an unknown reason, they allowed the fish industry to police themselves. As a result, the quality was lowered and higher mercury levels allowed. The FDA took a hit on this issue and it has been a sore subject with them.
Pregnant women and children are the ones mostly affected by the levels of merury in the canned fish. As well as those who eat it in high volume. I wouldn't worry too much if it's eaten in moderation. Also, other fishes affected are any surface swimming fish.
06-16-2005, 04:20 PM
I have read many articles on this and FWIW concluded that eating more than 4-5 cans a week was pushing it. Although I like saving money, changing some tuna consumption to canned chicken was no problem for me, as I like it also. I agree with Cuffs--moderation is the key.
06-16-2005, 05:56 PM
natedogg...canned chicken is cheap also if you shop right, lol.
since i buy both tuna and chicken in bulk i only pay about 15 cents more for a can of chicken as i do for a can of tuna if you average it out.
small price to pay for a change IMO
i just cant stand consuming massive quantities of the same food for very long without a minor change :-/
06-16-2005, 09:03 PM
06-16-2005, 10:40 PM
Not to change the context of this thread. But...good to see you posting here again Cogar. Long time no talk to. Hope things are going well and we see more of you here.Originally Posted by Cogar
06-16-2005, 11:02 PM
06-17-2005, 08:16 AM
No Moyer, it was 5-6 cans a day, so in average 35 cans a week. And yes my mercury level in my blood was normal. So I dont think mercury level in canned tuna is a problem.Originally Posted by Moyer
06-17-2005, 08:49 AM
Wow!!! I only eat Tuna on weekdays and that calculator has me @ 160%, scary!!!
Time to switch it around, perhaps turkey or pork since I already eat a lot of chicken.
06-17-2005, 10:34 AM
How about carcinogens from BBQ'ing? Any calculators on that one B? I eat BBQ every day and I remember when the cancer scare from eating BBQ was running amuck a few years back.
06-17-2005, 11:29 AM
I've heard a rumor that eating charred hot dogs or hamburgers (or anything else) cooked on a charcoal grill (not a gas grill) can cause cancer. Apparently there is a chemical reaction that takes place when the meat is burned. Have you heard anything supporting this? --SJA
Always the way, ain't it? It's not enough that you eat right, don't smoke, exercise, etc. Now they say you can get cancer if you burn the frigging burgers. What next--carcinoma from cracking your knuckles? Tumors because you didn't floss?
I'm not ruling anything out. But let's not get too excited--while eating burned food may increase cancer risk, nobody knows how much. Herewith some FAQs:
Does barbecuing cause cancer? Let's put it this way. Grilled meat contains known and suspected carcinogens. Whether it contains enough to significantly increase your risk of cancer hasn't been firmly established. Grilling meat produces at least two types of potentially dangerous chemicals: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heterocyclic amines (HCAs). PAHs are products of imperfect combustion found in smoke and burned matter. In large enough quantities they will definitely cause cancer in humans--to cite one famous example, scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps. In barbecue grills they're commonly formed when dripping fat flares up, charring the underside of the meat. For that matter, you make PAHs when you burn a piece of toast.
HCAs, whose possible role in cancer was more recently discovered, are the result of reactions between chemicals in muscle meat produced by high heat or prolonged cooking. In contrast to PAHs, HCAs are found inside the meat, not just on the surface, and can't be easily scraped or trimmed off. Also in contrast to PAHs, HCAs aren't necessarily more likely to be produced during grilling--they can be created when cooking in an ordinary oven or frying pan if you turn the heat up high enough. Researchers have found that HCAs are potent carcinogens when fed to rodents, but the link to cancer in humans is less clear; the rodents get thousands of times the dose you get from the occasional grilled burger. I won't bore you with the numbers, but in most of the epidemiological studies I've seen, the tests of statistical significance are barely out of the weeds.
Are all types of barbecuing equally risky? No. Mainly we're talking about grilling over open flame at high heat--backyard barbecuing, in other words. Slow barbecue, which generally involves lower temperatures and minimal flame exposure, seems to be less problematic. When grilling, cooking meat till it's well-done supposedly generates the most HCAs and PAHs, but the write-ups I've seen don't distinguish degrees of doneness adequately. Are we talking burned to a cinder or a little toothsome char? Not clear.
How serious is the threat? No one knows. The National Cancer Institute, a federal agency, states, "There is no good measure of how much HCAs would have to be eaten to increase cancer risk, and there are no guidelines concerning consumption of foods with HCAs." No thresholds have been established for PAHs either.
Are gas grills safer than charcoal? From what I can tell, there's nothing inherent in gas or charcoal that makes one safer than the other. You can make the case that since (a) production of dangerous chemicals is linked to high heat, and (b) the heat level is easier to control in a gas grill by adjusting the gas flow and rack height (in some grills, anyway), gas grills are safer. But that's speculation.
What if anything should you do to reduce risk due to barbecuing? Most dispensers of health advice, taking a better-safe-than-sorry approach, offer a grab bag of tips. Some are easy: don't incinerate your food, avoid flare-ups by not placing meat directly over coals, cook at lower temps, cut off blackened bits. Some are more hassle but not unreasonable: microwave meat beforehand for one to two minutes to reduce levels of chemicals that form HCAs and to cut down grill time. Others sound, well, half-baked, and aren't adequately supported by research: add vitamin E to the meat, drink tea with your barbecue (antioxidants supposedly detoxify HCAs). A few skeptics, notably Steven Milloy of junkscience.com, think the link between well-done meat and cancer is a crock and rightly note that undercooking hamburger increases the risk of food poisoning due to E. coli bacteria. Me? All things in moderation, bubba. If you're a cave dweller grilling the wily wildebeest on a daily basis, maybe you should worry. A couple steaks once a week during the summer? Hey, I'll bring the beer.
*The names have been changed for humor purposes. Reference Article
Last edited by David Dunn; 06-17-2005 at 12:42 PM.
06-17-2005, 11:58 AM
Tuna in a can, while not retaining all the benefits of fresh tuna, is still a healthy nutritional choice. A can of albacore tuna contains about 0.8-1g cholesterol-healthy Omega-3 fatty acids, while light tuna contains signifigantly less. Canned tuna, however, almost always contains "vegetable broth" as an added "flavor-enhancer." Since all major brands of broth contain MSG, that is a concern to some people. Best choice is to go with Star Kist Low Sodium albacore or Star Kist Tuna Fillet light tuna. Those are the only major brand tuna products to not contain "flavor enhancers".
For people looking to avoid excess carbs and stay full, Hellmann's Canola Mayonaise (tastes just like original!) is an excellent choice for a complement and supplies a large amount of Omegas, along with Poly and Monounsaturated fats, which keep you full while not having the negative effects of saturated fats (<1g) or trans fats, or the insulin-raising effects of sugars.
06-17-2005, 12:37 PM
06-17-2005, 03:05 PM
Wow. That's good to know.Originally Posted by Chunky
I figure my friends each have a can of Skoal a day, so a can of tuna a day for me is probably a good choice
06-17-2005, 08:43 PM
Thank you for noticing, Cuffs. It has been a while. Had some unfortunate changes in the family (my wife lost her mother, etc.) and it has taken until now for things to normalize.Originally Posted by Cuffs
06-18-2005, 12:38 AM
Similar Forum Threads
- By IAmTheDream in forum General ChatReplies: 130Last Post: 06-13-2010, 11:56 PM
- By Blesum in forum AnabolicsReplies: 23Last Post: 01-10-2007, 10:16 AM
- By DumbRussian in forum Weight LossReplies: 7Last Post: 12-18-2003, 02:07 PM
- By FullyBuilt in forum SupplementsReplies: 16Last Post: 07-09-2003, 09:06 AM
- By YellowJacket in forum Training ForumReplies: 1Last Post: 03-02-2003, 08:11 PM