In article , <attribution lost> wrote,

>Pope wrote:

>> <attribution lost> wrote,

>> >Tuna is not a low fat fish,

>> Totally false, look it up in the FDA database.

>I looked it up in the FDA database, and it clearly shows significant fat
>content for most species of tuna.

False

>> We've had this conversation on the NG before. For some reason,
>> the "tuna is a fatty fish" meme does not want to die.

>Most species of tuna are fatty fish. Get over it.

Nope.

Yellowtail -- 0.95 g fat per 100 gram. Not remotely fatty.

Fish, Tuna, Light, Canned in water -- 0.83 g fat per 100 g.
Not remotely fatty.

Fish, Tuna, White, Canned in water -- 2.97 g fat per 100 g.
Not fatty, but not as devoid of fat as the above two.

Did you really look this stuff up? I don't think so.

>> what is also true (and I think, more
>> of a factor) is that it varies by where on the tuna the cut
>> of fish comes from, with the belly being fattiest.

>It's more than somewhat true, the species fat ratio is like 4:1.

Yes, but not enough to make other than the fattiest cuts from
the fattiest species "fatty" in culinary terms.

Part of the confusion is that tuna is anatomically an "oily fish" which
means it has *some* oil in its fleshy tissues, as opposed
to all of it in internal organs and *none* in the fleshy tissues.
But for the purpose of cooking and eating, tuna is not remotely fatty
fish... unless if comes undrained out of an oil-packed can,
or is a top-priced cut of bluefin belly.

I'm here to tell ya', tuna is NOT a fatty fish. Never was,
isn't now. Terminate that meme with extreme prejudice.

Steve

On Aug 25, 2:44*am, (Steve Pope) wrote:
> In article , *<attribution lost> wrote,
>
> >Pope wrote:
> >> <attribution lost> wrote, *
> >> >Tuna is not a low fat fish,
> >> Totally false, look it up in the FDA database.
> >I looked it up in the FDA database, and it clearly shows significant fat
> >content for most species of tuna.
>
> False
>
> >> We've had this conversation on the NG before. *For some reason,
> >> the "tuna is a fatty fish" meme does not want to die.
> >Most species of tuna are fatty fish. Get over it.
>
> Nope.
>
> Yellowtail -- 0.95 g fat per 100 gram. *Not remotely fatty.
>
> Fish, Tuna, Light, Canned in water -- 0.83 g fat per 100 g. *
> Not remotely fatty.
>
> Fish, Tuna, White, Canned in water -- 2.97 g fat per 100 g.
> Not fatty, but not as devoid of fat as the above two.
>
> Did you really look this stuff up? *I don't think so.
>
> >> what is also true (and I think, more
> >> of a factor) is that it varies by where on the tuna the cut
> >> of fish comes from, with the belly being fattiest.
> >It's more than somewhat true, the species fat ratio is like 4:1.
>
> Yes, but not enough to make other than the fattiest cuts from
> the fattiest species "fatty" in culinary terms.
>
> Part of the confusion is that tuna is anatomically an "oily fish" which
> means it has *some* oil in its fleshy tissues, as opposed
> to all of it in internal organs and *none* in the fleshy tissues.
> But for the purpose of cooking and eating, tuna is not remotely fatty
> fish... unless if comes undrained out of an oil-packed can,
> or is a top-priced cut of bluefin belly.
>
> I'm here to tell ya', tuna is NOT a fatty fish. *Never was,
> isn't now. *Terminate that meme with extreme prejudice.
>
> Steve

Tuna is a fatty fish. I ate a tuna steak once. Never again. It was
way too rich for me.

A Moose In Love > wrote:

>Tuna is a fatty fish. I ate a tuna steak once. Never again. It was
>way too rich for me.

I personally have never had a piece of tuna that was other
than quite low-fat, with the sole exceptions being tuna that
was identified as toro (fatty belly).

"Rich" can mean a lot of things other than fatty.

This discussion is interesting to me, because it is certainly
in the interests of those cooking fish to know which fishes
are fatty and which are not. It may be less important to those
eating fish (a given preparation could have added fat, or
could have naturally-present fat drained off).


Steve