My MIL and FIL had an argument about which was healthier. MIL had baked
potato with bacon and sour cream, and considered that quite healthy. FIL
had whiting fried in batter and thought that was healthier because of the
omega 3 (or whatever it was) in the fish.

Who is right?

Any comments?

Jen

Jen wrote:
My MIL and FIL had an argument about which was healthier. MIL had baked
potato with bacon and sour cream, and considered that quite healthy. FIL
had whiting fried in batter and thought that was healthier because of the
omega 3 (or whatever it was) in the fish.

Who is right? Any comments?

Pretty silly question, if you ask me. It would mean something if that
were the only meal either of them ate, but it's meaningless to talk
about whether one food item is healthier than another. What matters is
the whole diet. Let them list everything they've eaten for the past
month and add it all up. Maybe then there'd be some meaningful
differences to be seen. -aem

"aem" wrote in message
oups.com...
Jen wrote:

Who is right? Any comments?

Pretty silly question, if you ask me. It would mean something if that
were the only meal either of them ate, but it's meaningless to talk
about whether one food item is healthier than another. What matters is
the whole diet. Let them list everything they've eaten for the past
month and add it all up. Maybe then there'd be some meaningful
differences to be seen. -aem


It wasn't any major argument, it was really only a minor debate! I think
usually they both eat much the same things which are generally pretty
healthy, this was just a rare occasion of eating out. And I think it's an
interesting question.

Jen

Jen wrote:
My MIL and FIL had an argument about which was healthier. MIL had
baked potato with bacon and sour cream, and considered that quite
healthy. FIL had whiting fried in batter and thought that was
healthier because of the omega 3 (or whatever it was) in the fish.

Who is right?

Any comments?

Jen

Fried fish vs. baked potato smothered in cheese... well there's a question
we'll never answer I love pan-fried whiting. I also love baked potatoes
with butter and cheese (not sour cream). Who is to be the judge? Only time
will tell. Methinks they should spend more time enjoying and less time
arguing about which is better or worse. Or not. G

Jill

Jen wrote:

My MIL and FIL had an argument about which was healthier. MIL had baked
potato with bacon and sour cream, and considered that quite healthy. FIL
had whiting fried in batter and thought that was healthier because of the
omega 3 (or whatever it was) in the fish.

Who is right?

Any comments?

Jen




Have a look at the post headed "Low Fat Diet Debunked". I would have
thought the question was more which one would give your greater indigestion.

Christine

"Jen" wrote in message
...
My MIL and FIL had an argument about which was healthier. MIL had baked
potato with bacon and sour cream, and considered that quite healthy. FIL
had whiting fried in batter and thought that was healthier because of the
omega 3 (or whatever it was) in the fish.

Who is right?

Any comments?


It's a silly argument. Individual foods are not healthy or unhealthy, it's
the entire diet that matters.


--
Peter Aitken

"jmcquown" wrote in message
...
Jen wrote:
My MIL and FIL had an argument about which was healthier. MIL had
baked potato with bacon and sour cream, and considered that quite
healthy. FIL had whiting fried in batter and thought that was
healthier because of the omega 3 (or whatever it was) in the fish.

Who is right?

Any comments?

Jen

Fried fish vs. baked potato smothered in cheese... well there's a question
we'll never answer I love pan-fried whiting. I also love baked
potatoes
with butter and cheese (not sour cream). Who is to be the judge? Only
time
will tell. Methinks they should spend more time enjoying and less time
arguing about which is better or worse. Or not. G

Jill

Perhaps it was one of those 'fun' discussions that ole-married-couples have
just making daily conversations. But to take sides (tee-hee), I'd go with
the fish.
Dee Dee

My MIL and FIL had an argument about which was healthier. MIL had baked
potato with bacon and sour cream, and considered that quite healthy. FIL
had whiting fried in batter and thought that was healthier because of the
omega 3 (or whatever it was) in the fish.

Who is right?

Any comments?

Jen
Just to fuel the fire...
I think they are both good and bad. The fish is a great source of protein
and is usually low fat, but the frying in batter screws that. And whiting I
believe is not one of the "oily" fish that has a lot of O3. The potato is a
great source of potassium, and a bunch of vitamins, but the toppings screw
that up.

I think the whole thing comes down to how often you eat such meals, and what
else you have with them. Eat either of these once or twice a month and it
could hardly make a difference, but eat them every day, and you'll soon be
making a visit to the cardio surgeon.

Larry T

Just to fuel the fire...

Larry T

My MIL and FIL had an argument about which was healthier. MIL had
baked potato with bacon and sour cream, and considered that quite
healthy. FIL had whiting fried in batter and thought that was
healthier because of the omega 3 (or whatever it was) in the fish.

Who is right?

Any comments?

Sorry - only comment would be that this is a silly question. The yardstick
of "what is healthy" means different things. Do you mean calories? Do you
mean fat? Better source of nutrition? So called "heart" healthy? I'm with
AEM on this one - eat what you like, eat a balanced diet, don't eat too
much, and most of all, if you aren't enjoying what you are eating - why
bother at all?

Good GRIEF people read more into things than HAS to be there......

I'm also betting it wasn't a "serious" argument - just a small debate.

Jen,

In my opinion - and ONLY my opinion, not based on any nutrition facts
or spending any time on it other than offering my opinion - I think the
potato would have to be a bit healthier, just in terms of no grease.
Gawd, have you SEEN some of those fryers?? shudders

Baking keeps more nutrition than deep frying. Sour cream isn't *that*
bad, and the small amount of bacon that was on it probably wasn't,
either.

The fish, I think, was probably lacking in nutrition since it wasn't
fresh - I'm betting, anyways, that it would have been frozen. I'm also
not sure about exactly how much Omega 3 is in those small pieces of
whiting - I know some other types have more, and fresh retains more.

There... you wanted comments

Cary in Ohio
__________________________

csc1964 wrote:

In my opinion - and ONLY my opinion, not based on any nutrition facts
or spending any time on it other than offering my opinion - I think the
potato would have to be a bit healthier, just in terms of no grease.
Gawd, have you SEEN some of those fryers?? shudders

Baking keeps more nutrition than deep frying. Sour cream isn't *that*
bad, and the small amount of bacon that was on it probably wasn't,
either.

The fish, I think, was probably lacking in nutrition since it wasn't
fresh - I'm betting, anyways, that it would have been frozen. I'm also
not sure about exactly how much Omega 3 is in those small pieces of
whiting - I know some other types have more, and fresh retains more.

I would defer to the advise of my late father in law who was very active,
healthy and mentally alert until he died peacefully in his sleep a few
weeks short of his 95th birthday "Everything in moderation.... including
moderation".

There are lots of things that our body needs in order to remain healthy,
some of them in trace amounts. Too much of anything can be bad for you.
Fat is good for you, but too much fat is not. The odd serving of deep fried
fish isn't going to kill you, but I wouldn't recommend a steady diet it any
more than I would recommend a steady diet of baked potatoes with sour cream
and bacon.

Jen wrote:
"aem" wrote:
Jen wrote:

Who is right? Any comments?

Pretty silly question, if you ask me. It would mean something if that
were the only meal either of them ate, but it's meaningless to talk
about whether one food item is healthier than another. What matters is
the whole diet. Let them list everything they've eaten for the past
month and add it all up. Maybe then there'd be some meaningful
differences to be seen. -aem


It wasn't any major argument, it was really only a minor debate!

And I think it's an interesting question.

Considering the inellectual level of your parent's debates you'd find
contemplating your belly button lint interesting... do you pick your
nose and eat your boogers too?

In article ,
"Jen" wrote:

My MIL and FIL had an argument about which was healthier. MIL had baked
potato with bacon and sour cream, and considered that quite healthy. FIL
had whiting fried in batter and thought that was healthier because of the
omega 3 (or whatever it was) in the fish.

Who is right?

The better question is, why bother arguing about such a subject? If
either of you is right, how will it change your diet? Unless you have
some health concerns, my answer is "don't worry about it."

I'll tell you the answer to that as soon as you can tell me this :

Which is safer ?
1. Juggling three bottles of nitro-glycerine for three minutes
2. Playing ten rounds of Russian Roulette with a .44 Magnum.

Ok, on a more serious side, healthy for whom ? For a diabetic, the fish
is probably the better option, but even that may depend on the batter.
I'd go a bit beyond that and say that the fish is better for most
people. A potato is mostly fairly simple carbohydrates. For breakfast
before a workout, it would not be a bad thing. For a late night snack
it would not be good. The sour cream has a decent amount of fat, and
quite a bit of that is saturated fat. Bacon also has quite a bit of
saturated fat as well as sodium.

The fish without the batter is healthy. Eaten in moderation, mercury
should not be a problem, but eaten every day it could be. The batter is
probably a fairly simple carbohydrate mixed with egg, and while less in
volume than the potato (I hope), it is then deep fried. If the fry oil
is a fresh mono-unsaturated oil, this isn't too bad. If it is beef
tallow or even old veggie oil, then it is far less healthy. As long as
the batter is thick enough and the oil temp hot enough, little if any
of the oil should be absorbed by the fish itself.

Dean G.

Sheldon wrote:

Considering the inellectual level of your parent's debates you'd find
contemplating your belly button lint interesting... do you pick your
nose and eat your boogers too?

IMHO, I think that both meals are equally "unhealthy" - but if they
were good eating, who cares?

Cheers
Cathy(xyz)