Guest guest Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 Money's real tight and I need to introduce massive economization into my food shopping quickly. Wild alaskan salmon generally goes for $12/lb for fresh fillet, $5-6/lb frozen fillet, $4/lb frozen patties. Trader Joe's has canned wild Alaskan salmon for $2.15/can which is just under a pound. What's more, the bones are included in it, so that one can yields 700 mg of calcium! Is there any reason not to use canned fish? I guess the aluminum might be a minor concern, but not over canned, say, coconut milk or anything else. Is it possible that with the inclusion of bones it would actually be *healthier* than a frozen fillet? Is there any reason to believe the canning process would damage any nutrients more than cooking would? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 Trader Joe's is great. They don't have any in TX :-( Bones in canned salmon add a nice dose of calcium, AND the crunch can be rather fun ... at least I like salmon cakes with that nice bone crunch. Dr. Byrnes recommends canned fish packed in water on his site in his shopping guide. http://www.powerhealth.net/shopping.htm I know he has discussed canned fish in general as well somewhere else on www.powerhealth.net . The main point was that it was a fine choice, in fact one of the only good canned food choices out there. Other than that, I think cans are mainly tin, cmiiw, except for maybe cheap cat food in aluminum. This might solely depend on the manufacturer, in which case, you'd have to talk with them about it. Good luck with economical living. Deanna Wild alaskan salmon generally goes for $12/lb for fresh fillet, $5-6/lb frozen fillet, $4/lb frozen patties. Trader Joe's has canned wild Alaskan salmon for $2.15/can which is just under a pound. What's more, the bones are included in it, so that one can yields 700 mg of calcium! Is there any reason not to use canned fish? I guess the aluminum might be a minor concern, but not over canned, say, coconut milk or anything else. Is it possible that with the inclusion of bones it would actually be *healthier* than a frozen fillet? Is there any reason to believe the canning process would damage any nutrients more than cooking would? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 Money's real tight and I need to introduce massive economization into my food >shopping quickly. > >Wild alaskan salmon generally goes for $12/lb for fresh fillet, $5-6/lb >frozen fillet, $4/lb frozen patties. Trader Joe's has canned wild Alaskan >salmon >for $2.15/can which is just under a pound. What's more, the bones are >included >in it, so that one can yields 700 mg of calcium! > >Is there any reason not to use canned fish? I guess the aluminum might be a >minor concern, but not over canned, say, coconut milk or anything >else. Is it >possible that with the inclusion of bones it would actually be *healthier* >than a frozen fillet? Is there any reason to believe the canning process >would >damage any nutrients more than cooking would? Fresh caught is obviously optimal but when one has to economize, compromise is sometimes in order. Canned fish is nutritious and there's no reason not to use it if it's what's available and what you can afford. I regularly eat canned salmon, mackerel, tuna, and sardines. Good fresh fish is hard to come by where I live. I'm not made of money and have a wife and 6 kids to support. Canned fish isn't ideal but for me at least, it will do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.