2004/06/03, 09:25 PM
Are there any major differences nutritionally between canned tuna and canned chicken breast?
|
|
|
2004/06/03, 09:31 PM
Sounds like a question for Jessica Simpson.:big_smile:
Sorry man, couldn't resist
-------------- Foolish consistancies are the hobgoblins of small minds.
Charlie
|
2004/06/03, 10:38 PM
Should be marked on the nutrition label and ingredients. Watch for the sodium in the chicken.
-------------- "A will finds a way, failure is not an option"
Ivan
carivan@freetrainers.com
Montreal Canada
|
2004/06/04, 05:56 AM
But it says chicken on the label...I mean I know its tuna...but why does it say chicken?
Seriously, it seems like a lot of people talk about canned tuna but do'nt mention canned chicken as an option. here doesn't seem to be much of a difference. (except for the sodium)
|
2004/06/04, 06:14 AM
chicken is chicken and tuna is tuna? I might have missed the point here but one has a ring pull the other needs a can opener- electric is fastest.
tuna has omega 3 and 6 ??? cholesterol busting fat where as chicken does not.
on the fat level, chicken is lower in fat than tuna but see above about fat types.
tuna has mercury through fish farming and debate is had over quantities to consume over a given period(ie lower)- chicken does not have this.
theres more fish volume per calorie than chicken so you can have a slightly bigger portion for the same colorific value.
tuna doesn't cluck or bite but can give a nasty suck. They make good kissers. Chickens are awkward at the kissing game forever in a flap about something.
|
2004/06/04, 10:04 AM
Maybe a bit more than I was looking for, but thanks. :)
|