PDA

View Full Version : Canned Foods



hockeybronx
12-06-2004, 05:13 PM
Hey guys, I was just wondering how much nutritional value some of these canned foods actually have? Chunky Soup, Chunky Chili, Chef Boyardee Spaghetti...are they just a filler like fast food or do they contain a worth-while amount of nutrients?

jaysas_63
12-06-2004, 05:23 PM
well the canned beans, and tuna are pretty damn good (just watch out, don't eat TOO much tuna, cause of the mercury levels)...but i would definatly stay far away from chef boyardy or any of that other shit....if u want soup or pasta u are WAY better of to make it ur slef...spare ur self the hydrogenated oils they use and other additives that are no good...

YCB
12-06-2004, 05:58 PM
doesn't it say on the nutritional value in the back?

those contain lots of sodium.. around like 900.. and we know sodium blah blah increase water retention etc..

AcuraTl
12-06-2004, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by hockeybronx
Hey guys, I was just wondering how much nutritional value some of these canned foods actually have? Chunky Soup, Chunky Chili, Chef Boyardee Spaghetti...are they just a filler like fast food or do they contain a worth-while amount of nutrients?

im not sure how much this has 2 do with the topic, but i learned a few weeks back that all canned foods are zapped with radiation of some sort to kill off any and all bacteria. This happened because in the 1980's campbells released some canned mushroom soup that had bacteria in it and like 100 ppl died......

Courtesy Physics 30

Wildcat
12-06-2004, 06:08 PM
better than most foods. i dont eat canned stuff, im all about the home cookin' :tongue:

craigcd
12-07-2004, 11:54 PM
Beans!! Lots of Protien

GTS Jeff
12-08-2004, 01:08 AM
canned food is fine as far as nutritional value goes. the only shitty thing is the metal taste...

7thgenvic
12-08-2004, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by GTS Jeff
canned food is fine as far as nutritional value goes. the only shitty thing is the metal taste...

i never get that metal taste, humm never noticed that before, but canned foods are just as nutritious! i do not see why the would be any less nutritional then making your own.

GTS Jeff
12-08-2004, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by 7thgenvic


i never get that metal taste, humm never noticed that before, but canned foods are just as nutritious! i do not see why the would be any less nutritional then making your own. i usually only notice it on canned chili....

QuasarCav
12-08-2004, 10:53 AM
Do not eat chunky chili. It tastes like ass and costs more than stagg.

hockeybronx
12-09-2004, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by 7thgenvic
i do not see why the would be any less nutritional then making your own.

Yeah that's just why I was asking. I was kind of wondering about preservatives and stuff like that, and also if they use lower quality ingredients to keep the costs down.

davidI
12-09-2004, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by hockeybronx


Yeah that's just why I was asking. I was kind of wondering about preservatives and stuff like that, and also if they use lower quality ingredients to keep the costs down.

I'm sure they use preservatives and use lower grade meat but it's convenient so why not!?

^SkylinE^
12-09-2004, 02:28 AM
Tuna does have mercury in it but just drink tea right after ...filters thst crap right out of ya!:thumbsup: True story!

GTS Jeff
12-09-2004, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by ^SkylinE^
Tuna does have mercury in it but just drink tea right after ...filters thst crap right out of ya!:thumbsup: True story! :dunno:

jaysas_63
12-10-2004, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by ^SkylinE^
Tuna does have mercury in it but just drink tea right after ...filters thst crap right out of ya!:thumbsup: True story!

sorry to burst ur bubble but tea doesn't prevent mercury poising......lol u should really try limiting the ammount of fish u eat to like once a week....neways thats what various research studies have concluded

Tyler883
12-11-2004, 05:24 PM
most of the mercury concerns are related to albacore tuna, ie WHITE TUNA -the more expensive kind.

if you buy the LIGHT TUNA - the cheaper kind like generic light chunks or flakes of tuna, the murcury content is likely NOT a problem becuase the cheaper tuna comes from a variety of species of tuna instead of albacore tuna. These non-albacore tuna are typically smaller fish haven't live as long, and haven't been exposed the ocean waters.

As a rule of thumb, the larger the fish the more likely it has mercury in, ....
....so the same people that tell you to stay away from tuna are the same "nay sayers" that wouldn't want to eat any fish in the ocean, especially the larger fish like shark.
.

GTS Jeff
12-11-2004, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Tyler883
most of the mercury concerns are related to albacore tuna, ie WHITE TUNA -the more expensive kind.

if you buy the LIGHT TUNA - the cheaper kind like generic light chunks or flakes of tuna, the murcury content is likely NOT a problem becuase the cheaper tuna comes from a variety of species of tuna instead of albacore tuna. These non-albacore tuna are typically smaller fish haven't live as long, and haven't been exposed the ocean waters.

As a rule of thumb, the larger the fish the more likely it has mercury in, ....
....so the same people that tell you to stay away from tuna are the same "nay sayers" that wouldn't want to eat any fish in the ocean, especially the larger fish like shark.
. u sound credible, but u blabbing about stuff liek bioaccumulation, which does not apply in this scenario.

health canada has a guideline of .5ppm mercury for all commercial fish. the few species known to exceed this guideline are shark, swordfish, and tuna. however, theyre occasional consumption foods so theyre exempt from the guidelines. canned tuna on the other hand, MUST be below 0.5ppm to be sold in canada. if it isnt, its shipped to the states where they have higher limits on this sorta shit.

so in conclusion, everyone should ignore your post, because here is the REAL recommendation, straight from health canada: limit consumption of shark, swordfish, and un-canned tuna to once a week. anything thats in a can, regardless of species, is under the 0.5ppm mercury limit.

(i have a final exam on this shit on tuesday)

Tyler883
12-12-2004, 11:12 PM
well, I still stand by the infomation that I posted, I re-read it and can't see any inaccuracies.

However, I also agree with the information that you posted. Thanks for the extra information.

The only thing that puzzles me, is why you went off - half snapped.

BTW, good luck on the exam

cheers

Tyler

GTS Jeff
12-12-2004, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by Tyler883
well, I still stand by the infomation that I posted, I re-read it and can't see any inaccuracies.

However, I also agree with the information that you posted. Thanks for the extra information.

The only thing that puzzles me, is why you went off - half snapped.

BTW, good luck on the exam

cheers

Tyler the inaccuracy is when u say that larger fish have more hg. this "may" be true, but as ive mentioned, it is unimportant due to health canada marketing guidelines. both large and small fish are subject to these guidelines.

mercury itself isnt really too bad for u, the bad shit is methylmercury...but at present the guidelines dont distinguish between the two...so it might be overkill anyway.

thanks for the luck.

Tyler883
12-13-2004, 02:00 PM
I was checking out the Health Canada website this morning: "The use of smaller, younger tuna in the canning process makes it possible for mercury levels in canned tuna to fall within the 0.5 ppm guideline. Smaller, younger fish have not accumulated higher levels of this contaminant."

The said that the methyl mercury is ingested as water passes by the gills of the fish. Also, the larger fish are fuyrther up in the food chain...ingesting additional amounts from their prey.

Another thing to consider is that there are varying degrees of "safe". Health Canada sets their restrictions at .5 ppm whch is about 20 times lower than cases where groups of people have died from mercury poisoning. It's quite rare for anyone to die from it, but there are cases like 100 japanese people that have died from continual ingestion of contaminated fish.

Anyway, w.r.t. white tuna vs light tuna (both canned):

there was an independant study done in the states that showed samples of white(albacore) canned tuna averaging about 300 ppb...well below the Health Canada's guidelines of 500 ppb. However, the light canned tuna showed samples averaging about 50 ppb....6 times lower than albacore canned tuna. This is information that I found several months ago, but could not find this morning. So you'll have to take my word on it( or like you suggested - ignore me because Health Canada sets it's limits at 500 ppb)

regards

Tyler

GTS Jeff
12-13-2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Tyler883
I was checking out the Health Canada website this morning: "The use of smaller, younger tuna in the canning process makes it possible for mercury levels in canned tuna to fall within the 0.5 ppm guideline. Smaller, younger fish have not accumulated higher levels of this contaminant."

The said that the methyl mercury is ingested as water passes by the gills of the fish. Also, the larger fish are fuyrther up in the food chain...ingesting additional amounts from their prey.

Another thing to consider is that there are varying degrees of "safe". Health Canada sets their restrictions at .5 ppm whch is about 20 times lower than cases where groups of people have died from mercury poisoning. It's quite rare for anyone to die from it, but there are cases like 100 japanese people that have died from continual ingestion of contaminated fish.

Anyway, w.r.t. white tuna vs light tuna (both canned):

there was an independant study done in the states that showed samples of white(albacore) canned tuna averaging about 300 ppb...well below the Health Canada's guidelines of 500 ppb. However, the light canned tuna showed samples averaging about 50 ppb....6 times lower than albacore canned tuna. This is information that I found several months ago, but could not find this morning. So you'll have to take my word on it( or like you suggested - ignore me because Health Canada sets it's limits at 500 ppb)

regards

Tyler thats good info. what im saying is that we can all rest easy and eat our tuna as long as it comes canned. cuz as u said, theyre all under health canada limits.

the japanese mercury dealie is minamata bay...actually mercury poisoning is now referred to as minamata disease. it does some bad shit, like it fucks up any motor control, blinds u, and makes u stupid...

anyway...

1badPT
12-13-2004, 04:42 PM
good to know - i've been scared away from eating tuna (its an easy way to increase protein intake) because of people saying it contains higher than average levels of mercury. I was never able to find anything that confirmed or denied that so this is good :thumbsup:

Now I can get back to choking that shit back down again :drool:

Tyler883
12-14-2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by GTS Jeff
thats good info. what im saying is that we can all rest easy and eat our tuna as long as it comes canned. cuz as u said, theyre all under health canada limits.



Thanks for summarizing the most important point.

In addition, I wanted to point out that the "light" tuna is possibly better than the albacore, which is ironic because the light tuna is often cheaper, and viewed as a "lessor" product.

I re-read my posts, and I apologise for the misunderstanding. I see, now, that my original comment( in the absense of your comment) might imply that there is something wrong or unsafe with white (albacore) tuna in the can. This was not my intention.

BTW, now that we got the methyl murcury thing covered.....I hear that the risk with canned/frozen salmon is pcb content. Should we dare try to sumarize this one too?

Tyler883
12-14-2004, 02:19 PM
quick summary: Health canada says that there is no problem with pcbs in farmed salmon.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media/releases/2004/factsheet_food.htm

sputnik
12-14-2004, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by GTS Jeff
the only shitty thing is the metal taste...

you arent supposed to eat the can.