What made you laugh today - Fifth Edition

Users who are viewing this thread

Actual conversation I had yesterday at a nutrition workshop:

Person: Do you eat pork?
Me: Yes, why do you ask?
Person: I read that pork is bad for you.
Me: Where did you read that?
Person: The bible.
Me: ...
 
Austupaio said:
To be fair, it's not great for you.

What's your thinking? Depending on the cut, it's not particularly fatty, a good percentage of its fats are monounsaturated, it's a good source of complete protein, and it's rich in micronutrients, especially thiamin.
 
Well, that's the thing. Most of it sold is poor cuts poorly processed.

Also, I just don't like it much, not even bacon. I'm such a rebel.

P.S. Hey, Mags, haven't seen you around.
 
Austupaio said:
Well, that's the thing. Most of it sold is poor cuts poorly processed.

Also, I just don't like it much, not even bacon. I'm such a rebel.

P.S. Hey, Mags, haven't seen you around.

"Most" would be difficult to substantiate, and even if you could that wouldn't be a comment on pork itself and you could make similar arguments about other fatty meats. Even then, the saturated fats from meats aren't terrible unless eaten excessively. Not exactly a basis to claim "pork isn't great for you".

Life has been busy! I'll be back for real in October.
 
Well, I wasn't expecting a debate on value of pork. Aside from the nutrients though, it was more of a comment based on, from my limited understanding, that pigs are one of those animals you want to avoid if you cannot be certain that the animal was healthy and the meat well processed/cooked. I always imagined that had a lot to do with religions early diet restrictions and zealots were just too zealous to realize why the rule was made up in the first place.

 
Austupaio said:
Well, I wasn't expecting a debate

:lol: You do actually remember me, right? :razz:

Austupaio said:
Aside from the nutrients though, it was more of a comment based on, from my limited understanding, that pigs are one of those animals you want to avoid if you cannot be certain that the animal was healthy and the meat well processed/cooked. I always imagined that had a lot to do with religions early diet restrictions and zealots were just too zealous to realize why the rule was made up in the first place.

Pork can be prone to the transmission of parasites if undercooked, but undercooked meat is always a risk. Beef can also carry parasites, and poultry is risky for bacterial reasons. I've read before something that debunked the notion that a correlation with sickness was the inspiration for religious restrictions of pork, but I can't recall what that was. I'll have to look.
 
Gave the small cat (castrated yesterday) her daily dose of liquid painkillers. She's now high as a kite again, standing upright licking the inside of the cone while swaying wildly. :lol:
 
I googled that exact sentence:
"standing upright licking the inside of the cone while swaying wildly"

and got this  :shock:
e7NJz.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom