 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / January 2006Whole Baby Clams Versus Sardines
Does anyone have an answer to the question at the end of this post? George W. Cherry Whole Baby Clams Versus Sardines My comparison is based on the nutrition labels on Geisha Whole Baby Clams (142 g drained) and Brunswick Sardines in Spring Water--no salt added (106 g). To make sense of the comparison I normalize by 100 calories. Protein: clams: 20g/125cal = 16g/100cal sardines: 20g/140cal = 14g/100cal Calcium: clams: 20%DV/125cal = 16%DV/100cal sardines: 21%DV/140cal = 15%DV/100cal Cholesterol: clams: 62.5mg/125cal = 0.5mg/100cal sardines: 115mg/140cal = 0.8mg/100cal Iron: clams: 100%DV/125cal = 80%DV/100cal sardines: 12%DV/140cal = 8.6%DV/100cal Sat. Fat: clams: 1.25g/125cal = 1g/100cal sardines: 1.5g/140cal = 1g/100cal I suppose it's not surprising that these two seafoods are so comparable: they are both low on the food chain. The most remarkable differ- ence is that the whole baby clams have over nine times as much iron per calorie as sardines (which is the main reason I prefer the clams to the sardines--I am somewhat anemic and my hemoglobin is chronically low). How about omega-3 fatty acid, which is the main nutritional reason to eat fish. The sardine wrapper explicitly states that the contents provide 1.2g omega-3 fatty acid per serving (140 calories). The clams (entire can, 125 calories) have 2.5g of unsaturated fat). How much of this is omega-3 fatty acid? I don't know. Do you? Please post if you know. >Does anyone have an answer to the question at >the end of this post? [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >much of this is omega-3 fatty acid? I don't >know. Do you? Please post if you know. Go to: http://www.truehaus.net/food/ where you can look it up. Clams don't have much though. Ora > Does anyone have an answer to the question at > the end of this post? > How about omega-3 fatty acid, which is the main > nutritional reason to eat fish. The sardine [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > much of this is omega-3 fatty acid? I don't > know. Do you? Please post if you know. One web site states that there is 0.3 omega-3 fatty acid in a 3 oz serving of clams.  SignatureRon Hepatitis-A: clams: 300mcg/125cal ;-) sardines: nil Purines: clams: nil sardines: 300 mg/140 cal ;-) Here's a nutrition profile for canned clams that has some of the n-3 PUFAs analyzed, and reports 212 mg omega-3 PUFAs per 3 oz (85 g) serving http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-B00001-01c215T.html Here's a nutrition profile for canned Pacific sardiens in tomato sauce that has some of the n-3 PUFAs analyzed, and reports 5394 mg omega-3 PUFAs per 13 oz (370 g) serving http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-B00001-01c214N.html BTW, there is a brand of eggs that labels on the carton 350 mg omega-3 PUFA per egg. > Does anyone have an answer to the question at > the end of this post? Who cares? Certainly NOT me!!! > Whole Baby Clams Versus Sardines How can anybody ignore the fact that clams are obviously bottom dwellers whose ecological role in the grand scheme in the web of life is that of a sewage and garbage reprocessing plant? You might want to eat the most likely of all polluted filthy creatures, but I certainly do not. Just thought that commonsense might prevail once and a while. > You might want to eat the most likely of all polluted filthy creatures, > but I certainly do not. And, the people who love to eat RAW oysters are absolutely nuts!!! Oysters, just like clams, are bottom dwellers full of reprocessed sewage and garbage. >> You might want to eat the most likely of all polluted filthy creatures, >> but I certainly do not. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Oysters, just like clams, are bottom dwellers full of reprocessed > sewage and garbage. Wrong on this. Oysters are not bottom dwellers. They are tidal zone dwellers. Chypho... > >> You might want to eat the most likely of all polluted filthy creatures, > >> but I certainly do not. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Wrong on this. Oysters are not bottom dwellers. They are tidal zone dwellers. Ooooh! As if the totally obvious is anything but obvious? http://www.nap.edu/books/0309090520/html/60.html "Oysters are members of the family Ostreacea, class Bivalvia, in the phylum Mollusca. Under the current systematic schema, most commercially important species are classified in three major genera: Ostrea, Saccostrea, and Crassostrea and a number of minor genera (Carriker and Gaffney, 1996). Adults are intertidal and subtidal bottom dwellers found worldwide. Most oyster species form the basis of local fisheries or aquaculture operations." >> >... >> > And, the people who love to eat RAW oysters are absolutely nuts!!! [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > found worldwide. Most oyster species form the basis of local fisheries > or aquaculture operations." Partially corrected. There are oysters not attached to hard surfaces in the tidal zone. But guess what, the vast majority of oyster fishing involves harvesting the tidal zone! Plenty of those fisheries around here... People who eat RAW oysters should be eating live ones. If they aren't live, then I'd agree that the eaters are nuts, and likely to get sick. BTW: I don't eat oysters, but that's because I don't like them! Chypho... > Partially corrected. There are oysters not attached to hard surfaces in the tidal > zone. But guess what, the vast majority of oyster fishing involves harvesting > the tidal zone! Plenty of those fisheries around here... Let me tell you about tidal zones! Oysters were/are harvested in the Chesapeake Bay. This bay was impressive some 400 years ago, but today is the recipient of all manner of toxic industrial waste. It is the entry point of mercury toxins into the ocean. All that toxic Keypone poisoning from Hopewell, Virginia 15 years ago came out into the Chesapeake Bay. Oysters live on the bottom of this bay. Of course, today the oysters have almost disappeared from the Bay. Meaning that it is currently too dirty even for these bottom dwellers, tidal zone or no tidal zone. Your romanticism will end up doing youself end in the end. So much for tidal zones! >> Partially corrected. There are oysters not attached to hard surfaces in >> the tidal [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > So much for tidal zones! Take a look at http://www.oceansalive.org/eat.cfm?subnav=bestandworst which lists clams and oysters as eco-best seafood choices. George > >> Partially corrected. There are oysters not attached to hard surfaces in > >> the tidal [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > which lists clams and oysters as eco-best > seafood choices. In my youth I ate exclusively Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in fancy restaurants. But of course, I started the meal with a shrimp coctail. I seriously doubt the accuracy of this list, since it lists the rather large Atlantic Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) ahead of the lot smaller Sardines. I see 1.87 g of Omega-3s for sardines compared to only 0.14 g in claims. Further, to quote the clam health warning: "There is insufficient data on contaminant levels in this fish. EPA and FDA recommend that people not eat the same kind of fish more than once a week, to protect against excessive intake of mercury." Perhaps, you should actually read what is on this web site before you blindly start bragging about clams!!! >> >> Partially corrected. There are oysters not attached to hard surfaces >> >> in [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > recommend that people not eat the same kind of fish more than once a > week, to protect against excessive intake of mercury." Yes, I've been a little disappointed in the small amount of Omega-3 in clams. (But no matter, I take fish oil capsules every day.) Yes, I read that warning. What's a hungry guy to do who'd rather not eat vertebrates, for no doubt arguable reasons? The fish oil I use is from sardines and other small fish low on the food chain. I'm looking into switching to Krill oil. What's you take on Krill oil, Mr-Natural-Health? (Yes, I know sardines are vertebrates, but at least they are wild-caught.) > Perhaps, you should actually read what is on this web site before you > blindly start bragging about clams!!! Alas, is there no invulnerable enthusiasm here? What have you got against Quorn? Too "unnatural"? Anything wrong with broccoli sprouts? I had broccoli sprouts with my Quorn salad today. George >> >> You might want to eat the most likely of all polluted filthy >> >> creatures, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > found worldwide. Most oyster species form the basis of local fisheries > or aquaculture operations." Righto. Also, take a look at http://www.oceansalive.org/eat.cfm?subnav=bestandworst which lists clams and oysters as eco-best seafood choices. George >> You might want to eat the most likely of all polluted filthy creatures, >> but I certainly do not. > > And, the people who love to eat RAW oysters are absolutely nuts!!! Definitely a "nutty" proclivity. > Oysters, just like clams, are bottom dwellers full of reprocessed > sewage and garbage. Take a look at http://www.oceansalive.org/eat.cfm?subnav=bestandworst which lists clams and oysters as eco-best seafood choices. George >> Does anyone have an answer to the question at >> the end of this post? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Just thought that commonsense might prevail once and a while. Take a look at http://www.oceansalive.org/eat.cfm?subnav=bestandworst which lists clams and oysters as eco-best seafood choices. George Read the oceansalive notes - every clam they say is ecobest is one that is hand harvested in limited quantities. They do not recommend the standard clams of commerce, which are harvested by bottom dragging. Also, note that what oceansalive calls 'estuarian' means places like Chesapeake Bay, not exactly the most pollution-free of locations for seafood to grow. On the plus side, clams are an extraordinary source of bioavailable B12. "Bioavailable B-12 from animal foods is not an issue if you take synthetic B-12 which is better assimilated than B-12 from meat or seafood, especially in older folks." Some people prefer to eat natural food rather than manufactured chemicals. Clams have so much B12 that even older folks like me can get enough from them by eating one clam (7 g) a day - an NLEA serving per week. (B12 is best absorbed when spread over many meals rather than in concentrated doses.) The ranking of foods on this site has more to do with sustainable ecosystems than with human food value. If you want to rank foods by just omega-3 content as one poster did, go to the USDA nutrient lists. > Does anyone have an answer to the question at > the end of this post? I seem to missing something in this thread. So, I will start over again with the first post to this thread. :( This question is answered directly on the web site itself, as well as in my last post. To get the answer you have to select a specific type of clam. Going with first choice, butter clams you see that they contain next to no omega-3 EFAs when compared to sardines. > To make sense of the comparison I normalize by > 100 calories. Gee, there is ONLY one way to normalize. Nutrients should be provided as this web site did in 100 gram servings sizes. > The most remarkable difference > enceover > nine times as much iron per calorie as sardines > (which is the main reason I prefer the clams > to the sardines--I am somewhat anemic and my > hemoglobin is chronically low). Perhaps, if you are a female but most men should be trying to minimize their iron intake. So, that is a definite NEGATIVE. The only reason a NORMAL person would want to eat cold water fatty fish is for their omega-3 EFA content. Sorry, but vegetarians are kooks. No way is a vegetarian diet normal, or healthy. And, I really do NOT have the time to explain why the average vegetarian could be suffering from organic dementia from their horribly unhealthy vegetarian diet. And, that would go double for those who go vegetarian, plus clams. Nor, do I care what some kook might want to call such an idiotic combination. The second reason would be for IODINE. And, calcium might be a 3rd reason. Protein is hardly a reason, assuming that you do eat meat. Or, at least combine the correct plant food combinations for their complete protein content. THEREFORE, I see nothing going for clams for the average NORMAL person, unless you happen to be a female in need of iron. -- John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science! The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17 web pages, Nutrition (http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/) is now with more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before. >> Does anyone have an answer to the question at >> the end of this post? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of clam. Going with first choice, butter clams you see that they > contain next to no omega-3 EFAs when compared to sardines. From the Oceans Alive website: For 370 calories of butter clams you get 0.7g of Omega-3 and 63.5g of protein. That's not so bad. What I find really attractive about butter clams as documented on the Oceans Alive website is their low calorie density: 0.74 calories/gram. >> To make sense of the comparison I normalize by >> 100 calories. > > Gee, there is ONLY one way to normalize. Nutrients should be provided > as this web site did in 100 gram servings sizes. What counts to me is the nutritional benefit per calorie. It's like a benefit/cost ratio. So I nomalize by calories, not mass. >> The most remarkable difference >> enceover [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Perhaps, if you are a female but most men should be trying to minimize > their iron intake. So, that is a definite NEGATIVE. I'm not like most men now. I have iron deficiency anemia. > The only reason a NORMAL person would want to eat cold water fatty fish > is for their omega-3 EFA content. Almost agreed. Their protein and calcium are also useful. > Sorry, but vegetarians are kooks. No way is a vegetarian diet normal, > or healthy. And, I really do NOT have the time to explain why the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > John Gohde, You have a winning way, John, very amiable. George > You have a winning way, John, very amiable. Gee, ... at least I don't act like I am mentally defective. You set this thread up. You wrote your question. You wrote the first post. You are the one who is nuts. Not me!!! Why don't you say for the Kooky Vegetarian who is deficient in iron because they don't eat meat, clams have something to offer? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Of course why a vegetarian would eat clams, and not meat, to begin with, only a person with a mental deficit could answer with a straight face without cracking up. And, Oh by the way. A lot of people are NOT worried about gaining weight. In fact some of us, would actually like to gain more weight. Just thought that the fruitcake might want to know that not everybody in the universe is suffering from the same health problems that you happen to have. >> You have a winning way, John, very amiable. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > in the universe is suffering from the same health problems that you > happen to have. You have a winning way, John, very amiable. : o ) George > You have a winning way, John, very amiable. : o ) George, you are kook! As well as an idiot. Personally, I do not like being snuckered into a thread/conversation under false pretenses. I don't know jack about identifying fish, buddy. "Best & Worst Seafood Choices" lists 3 kinds of mackerel. Two of the 3 are classified as do NOT eat due to contamination. Somehow this table is trying to tell me at the same time that "Atlantic Mackerel" is one of the best fish to eat. So, I ask what about "Jack Mackerel"? Why ain't Jack Mackerel listed? What about the mackerel that I see in the store? What is it, Good or Bad? How am I supposed to tell the difference? Simple!!! Avoid big fish, period. Avoid all mackerel period, if one variety is known to be contaminated. Simple!!! Avoid stupid tables, with undisclosed classification schemes, that are being presented by Kooks, like you, with hidden undisclosed agendas. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.