Is Fat Bad for You?
Finishing American Bresse Chickens adds fat to the chicken meat, and therefore it is understandable when one asks whether or not fat is bad for human health.
In the context of finishing American Bresse chickens, is that question really asking:
Since fat IS bad for you, maybe American Bresse Chickens shouldn't be finished, because it would make them even more fatty...?
Let's think this through a bit, shall we?
Bresse chickens have been raised in France for centuries. They were present by name in the French historical records since 1591. European kings and courtiers have dined liberally on caponed Coq Bresse au Vin for over 430 years, without complaint. At least one English king is rumored to have gone out of his way to swing by the Bresse Valley for yet another divine dish of Bresse poultry. Bresse chickens have over many years garnered a wonderful reputation as "queen of chicken and the chicken of kings."
Crickets on any ill-effects.
Fat sure gets a bad rap these days. But the less fat we Americans eat, the fatter and sicker we seem to become. We're hungry! So we eat more, and in order to flavor the fat-free, tasteless food, we add extra sugar and salt to make the food palatable.
If fat is the problem, but Americans are eating less of it, why then does America continue to have a spreading epidemic of obesity and declining health?
Is there any dietary significance to today's sugar consumption?
Maybe. Check out the chart at right. In 300 years, sugar consumption is up by forty-five times. It doubled since 1900 alone. Science has been noting this trend along with the trend of rising inflammatory diseases. In the 1950s, scientific studies began to demonstrate a connection between carbohydrate consumption and adverse health effects, such as heart attacks and metabolic disease.
Sugar industry executives quickly saw that if the populace began to believe the studies, people would stop eating large quantities of sugar and the industry would collapse. So, huge sugary corporations such as Coca Cola began to surreptitiously pay big bucks to scientists to start slanting their ongoing studies against fat to deflect the blame from sugar. They paid scientists to equivocate (lie), and failed to declare the massive conflicts of interest. (Always follow the money.)
This is how and why, since the mid-1960s, the American Medical Association and the American Dietetic Society allowed the Sugar Industry to turn the entire United States citizenry into guinea pigs in a hotly waged, sugar-industry-financed deadly battle of fat versus sugar.
For the record, the scientific subterfuge continues even today, suggests the Journal of AMA Internal Medicine.
Fat bad. It's all we've heard for 60 years, after all. Here's my proof: Did you not agree with the assumption that fat IS bad for you?? (Kudos if you did not... :-))
Actually, fat is not the problem. Sugar is, and here is why:
Well, well, well... That is what the Sugar Industry was trying to hide. The problem with our arteries is not due to fat, nor even with cholesterol. It is SUGAR causing widespread generalized inflammation in humans when consumed regularly and in quantities that trigger excess insulin into the bloodstream.
Yet we keep on eating sugar at astronomical rates. The propaganda is so pervasive that sugar consumption rises even as overall health in the United States continues to circle the drain. But, "Gotta eat less FAT!"
If fat were very bad for humans, it should not be hard to find historical evidence in mortality statistics over decades or centuries. So, let's compare death stats separated by a century of time: the late 1800s, along with 1880s dietary habits, compared with the most recent available mortality stats, which at the time of writing was 2019.
So how did they eat, back in the day?
From a 21st century perspective, normal fat consumption in 1890 was shockingly high. People in the 1800s were hard working and slender. They ate heavy cream for up to three meals a day, especially in the mid-west farming communities. Trans-fat was unheard of, and mayonnaise (partially hydrogenated) did not come onto the scene until 1909. People cooked with and ate lots of animal fats (lard and butter). Check out any cookbook of the day to corroborate these assertions.
In 1890, people died of infections, accidents, and old age, but not often from chronic inflammatory disease such as diabetes, cancer, or coronary disease.
Today, sugar intake is through the roof, and fat intake is discouraged. The AMA has developed standards of practice based on the lies promulgated by the Sugar Industry, which doctors must follow or risk their medical license. Fake science fills the search engine results pages, suggesting you curtail your fat intake "for your health's sake." Sixty years ago all canned tuna was packed in oil; today the majority of canned fish that is sold is packed in water.
Mmmmm.... Please pass the gravy!
I sure don't think so. At least, I don't buy the "eating-fat-makes-you-fat" line. From my registered nursing perspective, the uncompromised science shows without a doubt that it is excess sugar intake that contributes to chronic inflammation.
There are many more causes of death than fats vs. sugars alone. For example, it is not within the scope of this page to address the effects of genetics, nor of pesticides, fast foods, chemical additives, or soil exhaustion that deplete our food sources of nutrients. (I eat organic for those reasons, and feed my flock organic feeds.)
But in my opinion, the wild differences in death statistics between 1890 and 2019 cannot be ignored or reasoned away without some serious further analysis regarding fats and refined sugars.
Finishing American Bresse chickens DOES add some extra fat to the meat.
That is a GOOD thing! I'm sure the French, both then and now, agree.
Check out our Schmaltz (rendered chicken fat) page!
* Not medical advice. Please consult your physician.
PS: No individual or organization has paid me for my opinion!
I have given it to you freely. Sources are here. :-)
Translate This Page
Traduire Cette Page
Traduzca Esta Pagina