I'm making homeade ham. Recipe is simple - take meat, rub spices, let sit in fridge, throw part of it into food processor, blend, mix with rest, put into form, bake or boil, leave in the fridge overnight, ready.
So I haven't removed or added anything to the meat, except spices, which can be ignored, as they weigh less than 1% of the total. I started with 1200 meat, and ended with 900 cooked ham.
The declared nutrition value of pork I used was 257Cal, 16Prot, 21Fat. Typical for the cut.
So, if we follow the rule that calories don't change, we get 342Cal, 21Prot, 28Fat.
But isn't this absurd?
Checking all the avaiable ham in all the local shops, there is no single product which has so much nutritional value! Their protein amount is in 9-15 range, fat in 3-20 range. Typical values are 15Prot 3Fat, or 12Prot 5Fat, or 9Prot 10Fat, maximum fat I saw was 8Prot 20Fat, and it looked fat, it had huge white chunks, so it was obvious it's going to be fat, but still, not as fat as what we get with homemade one. No single one came even close to the Calories homemade has.
How can this be?
Store-bought ham has no "filling" that could produce such a reduction in nutrition. I checked all the labels. It contains the same ingredients - meat, spices, and additionally those typical chemicals - regulators, sweeteners, taste enchancers - but all those don't affect nutrition as they are present in very small amounts. There is no filler component that could introduce such a dip in nutrition value! Nothing. Some contain starch, but since their Carb amount is 0 or very low, they must contain insignificant amounts of it.
So how come storebought ham is 2 to 3 times less nutritionally dense than what I make at home? Is it wrong, in case of ham, to calculate nurtition this way, or are all the ham labels in the shops lying? What's going on?
[link] [comments]
from A place to become a better cook and share your culinary knowledge http://bit.ly/2XMaoO6
Comments
Post a Comment