Guest guest Posted March 1, 2004 Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 does anyone think cracklings are as good a source of collagen as any other method of preparing pork skin? Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2004 Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 In a message dated 3/1/04 12:30:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > does anyone think cracklings are as good a source of collagen as any other > method of preparing pork skin? I don't see why not. But it's worth noting that all meat is a good source of collagen, and while skin might be a more concentrated source, unless you eat a lot of it, you'd probably get more from a normal amount of meat, I'd think. Or stocks, if you use them daily. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2004 Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 > Re: cracklings and collagen > > >In a message dated 3/1/04 12:30:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, >s.fisher22@... writes: > >> does anyone think cracklings are as good a source of collagen as >any other >> method of preparing pork skin? > >I don't see why not. But it's worth noting that all meat is a >good source of >collagen, and while skin might be a more concentrated source, >unless you eat >a lot of it, you'd probably get more from a normal amount of meat, >I'd think. >Or stocks, if you use them daily. right. mokie has invertibral disc disease and she eats mostly meat, along with organs and bones. i need a more concentrated source of collagen. so i'm giving her broth, chicken feet (will receive them in the next few days), gelatin (also on order), chondroitin, and pig skin - hopefully soon. she needs more than the normal amount of collagen currently in her diet. as for me, i already eat a good amount of meat, but i'll be having more broth and perhaps supplemental gelatin and cracklings as well. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 Suze- >does anyone think cracklings are as good a source of collagen as any other >method of preparing pork skin? Highly unlikely to the point of no frickin way. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 > Highly unlikely to the point of no frickin way. ----> Why ..aren't they from skin???? Lynn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 Lynn- > > Highly unlikely to the point of no frickin way. > >----> Why ..aren't they from skin???? Sure, but they're profoundly changed by the cooking process, and I strongly doubt they're usable as collagen. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 > Re: cracklings and collagen > > >Lynn- > >> > Highly unlikely to the point of no frickin way. >> >>----> Why ..aren't they from skin???? > >Sure, but they're profoundly changed by the cooking process, and I >strongly >doubt they're usable as collagen. a couple of things: first, how would frying them alter them in a way different than any other cooking method? or do you think they should be eaten raw? (which is probably not a good idea unless the producer freezes it at the temp and length of time to kill trichy.) second, i've read that INTACT collagen, at least when taken topically, is not absorbed as the molecules are too big. it's probably the same case with ingested collagen, although i'm not certain. i'm guessing that it's the specific amino acids in collagen that allow us to make our own collagen from the same materials (as is the case with the amino acids in gelatin). so, it doesn't matter how it's prepared as long as the amino acids are intact, and i don't see where fried cracklings would have damaged amino acids, *unless* the lard is heated VERY high, which is not the way to make lard. or maybe the cracklings are made separately and at very high heat? Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 > > Sure, but they're profoundly changed by the cooking process, and I strongly > doubt they're usable as collagen. ----> They are added to simmering broth to increase gelatin. What would be the difference? Do you think it's the increase in heat with lard fying? Lynn > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2004 Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 In a message dated 3/6/04 2:03:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, Idol@... writes: > >second, i've read that > >INTACT collagen, at least when taken topically, is not absorbed as the > >molecules are too big. > > That's true (as I understand it) about topical applications, but topical > application and digestion have virtually nothing in common. They do have a lot in common; namely, absorption of the skin and absorption through the intestines both involves the transport of substances through the membranes of epithelial cells. Proteins of any kind cannot possibly fit through a membrane of any cell in the body, and they can't fit through the epithelial cells of the intestines unless the junctions between the cells are damaged or the cells have somehow shrunk to allow gaps between them. Channel proteins are never big enough to fit even dimers inside them, never mind proteins. And, as far as I can conceive, it would be impossible to design a channel protein that could maintain specificity on the one hand, and on the other hand let something bigger than a single amino acid into it. That's why every single peptide-based hormone in the body latches on to cell receptors, while all of the steroid hormones actually go through the membrane into the cell-- proteins can't fit through channels. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2004 Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 Suze- >a couple of things: first, how would frying them alter them in a way >different than any other cooking method? It's much hotter. The method that issue of Wise Traditions referred to involved gentle simmering and creating a very thick jelly -- that would take place at a much lower temperature. >second, i've read that >INTACT collagen, at least when taken topically, is not absorbed as the >molecules are too big. That's true (as I understand it) about topical applications, but topical application and digestion have virtually nothing in common. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2004 Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 > In a message dated 3/6/04 2:03:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, > Idol@c... writes: > >> Channel proteins are never big enough to fit even dimers inside them, never > mind proteins. And, as far as I can conceive, it would be impossible to design a channel protein that could maintain specificity on the one hand, and on the > other hand let something bigger than a single amino acid into it. > > Well, not sure you're right about that. Dipeptides and tripeptides get transported too, propton-coupled; I think it's pepT1. Marty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2004 Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 > Re: cracklings and collagen > > >In a message dated 3/6/04 2:03:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, >Idol@... writes: > >> >second, i've read that >> >INTACT collagen, at least when taken topically, is not absorbed as the >> >molecules are too big. >> >> That's true (as I understand it) about topical applications, but topical >> application and digestion have virtually nothing in common. > >They do have a lot in common; namely, absorption of the skin and >absorption >through the intestines both involves the transport of substances >through the >membranes of epithelial cells. Proteins of any kind cannot >possibly fit through >a membrane of any cell in the body, and they can't fit through the >epithelial >cells of the intestines unless the junctions between the cells are >damaged or >the cells have somehow shrunk to allow gaps between them. right - we don't digest intact proteins (although they can leak into the bloodstream as you mentioned). so it still comes down to the same thing - collagen is first broken down in the digestive tract and it's building blocks (peptides, di-peptides and tri-peptides) provide the building blocks for our own collagen. So any cooking method that doesn't destroy or distort the amino acids should be acceptable. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 In a message dated 3/6/04 5:46:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, darkstar@... writes: > Well, not sure you're right about that. Dipeptides and tripeptides > get transported too, propton-coupled; I think it's pepT1 Really? Do you have a source for further reading on this? In any case, tri-peptides are *vastly* smaller than collagen! Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 In a message dated 3/7/04 11:28:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, Idol@... writes: > OK, sure, inasmuch as they're both biological systems, you can cough up a > few similarities, but food is DIGESTED when it goes through the DIGESTIVE > tract. Which would indicate that collagen could not be absorbed in tact. (?) > It is hydrolyzed by acid By water, rather, no? and further broken down by a multiplicity > of enzymes, bile acids and other substances, not to mention acted on by > various beneficial microbes. All of which would indicate there's no way in heck you are going to absorb an intact collagen molecule from your intestines... Since even the wrong kind of acid taken as a > supplement can supposedly dramatically decrease absorption via digestion, I > > think it's pretty clear that successful digestion is highly dependent on > the success of specific digestive processes. Ok, but all of this supports the view that proteins can't be absorbed in tact, rather than the reverse. I highlighted a similarity very, in fact, extremely, relevant to why I believe your view to be incorrect, and you've now highlighted numerous differences that are also very relevant to why your view appears to be incorrect. > > >And, as far as I can conceive, it would be impossible to design > >a channel protein that could maintain specificity on the one hand, and on > the > >other hand let something bigger than a single amino acid into it. > > AFAIK Marty's correct on this one and you're not. She probably is, and I look forward to learning more, but what Marty said also indicates that you're incorrect too, since collagen is absolutely massive compared to a tri-peptide and could not be channeled through a membrane. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 Chris- >They do have a lot in common; namely, absorption of the skin and absorption >through the intestines both involves the transport of substances through the >membranes of epithelial cells. OK, sure, inasmuch as they're both biological systems, you can cough up a few similarities, but food is DIGESTED when it goes through the DIGESTIVE tract. It is hydrolyzed by acid and further broken down by a multiplicity of enzymes, bile acids and other substances, not to mention acted on by various beneficial microbes. Since even the wrong kind of acid taken as a supplement can supposedly dramatically decrease absorption via digestion, I think it's pretty clear that successful digestion is highly dependent on the success of specific digestive processes. >And, as far as I can conceive, it would be impossible to design >a channel protein that could maintain specificity on the one hand, and on the >other hand let something bigger than a single amino acid into it. AFAIK Marty's correct on this one and you're not. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 Suze- > So any cooking method that doesn't destroy or distort >the amino acids should be acceptable. Then why not eat all your meat well-done and fried? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 > RE: cracklings and collagen > > >Suze- > >> So any cooking method that doesn't destroy or distort >>the amino acids should be acceptable. > >Then why not eat all your meat well-done and fried? > There is more to meat than amino acids. I do however eat ALL or most of my collagen as very long cooked broth that has been boiled and simmered for two days. IF cracklings are cooked at such a high heat that it somehow distorts the amino acids that serve as building blocks to collagen, then obviously it's not desirable. But I already stated that. However skin is also high in omega 6 fatty acids, so I wouldn't want it cooked at too high a temp for that reason as well. I'm just looking for another source of collagen aside from broth, and no way in hell I'm going to eat raw pig skin. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 > In a message dated 3/6/04 5:46:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, > darkstar@p... writes: > > > Well, not sure you're right about that. Dipeptides and tripeptides > > get transported too, proton-coupled; I think it's pepT1 > > Really? Do you have a source for further reading on this? > Here's a current textbook source: " Physiology " , Berne, Levy et al, 5th edition, 2004, from the gut chapter: " Intact proteins and large peptides are not absorbed by humans to an extent that is nutritionally significant. .... Absorption of small peptides: After the breakdown of proteins by pancreatic proteins [typo? did they mean proteases?] and brush border peptidases, the dipeptides and tripeptides are transported across the brush border membrane. The rate of transport of these small peptides usually exceeds the rate of transport of individual amino acids. A single membrane transport system with broad specificity is responsible for the absorption of smal peptides. This transport system apparently has a high affinity for dipeptides and tripeptides but very low affinity for peptides of four or more amino acid residues. ...(there's more detail here)... Most of the small peptides that enter the intestinal epithelial cells are cleaved to single amino acids and absorbed into the blood as single amino acids. However, recent evidence suggests that a small but signiicant amount of dipeptides and tripeptides is transported into the blood by a peptide transporter in the basolateral membrane; this transporter remains poorly characterized. " (Note, that's a textbook version and may leave things out and may already be a bit behind.) The chapter bibliography mentions papers which seem to be on this topic by Fei, Y, Ganapathy, V, & Liebach FH '98 Steel A et al '97 Also there's a review article by H in the Jan 2004 Annual Review of Physiology, " Molecular & Integrative Physiology of Intestinal Peptide Transport " . I was about to read that when your post came by, so it was on my mind. Marty (or Martha, either one is fine) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 Chris- >Which would indicate that collagen could not be absorbed in tact. (?) And I can't levitate. So? >All of which would indicate there's no way in heck you are going to absorb an >intact collagen molecule from your intestines... You're once again arguing against a proposition I never made. In fact, I don't think anyone other than you has even referred to the idea that collagen can be absorbed intact from the intestines. >Ok, but all of this supports the view that proteins can't be absorbed in >tact, rather than the reverse. I highlighted a similarity very, in fact, >extremely, relevant to why I believe your view to be incorrect, and you've >now >highlighted numerous differences that are also very relevant to why your >view appears >to be incorrect. My VIEW, is NOT NOW and NEVER HAS BEEN that collagen (or any other proteins) can be or are absorbed intact from the intestines. I defy you to show me where I said this. What I DID say is that I strongly suspect that pork cracklings have been affected by their high-heat cooking in such a way that the collagen content will be of LESS USE. Cooked protein is generally harder to digest and absorb. High heat causes more problems than low heat, and appears to be fundamentally different (though maybe just due to temperature) from wet cooking. Hence my suggestion that making and eating a jelly from pig skin (as per a fairly recent WAPF article) is probably a much better means of improving one's skin and connective tissue than eating cracklings. >She probably is, and I look forward to learning more, but what Marty said >also indicates that you're incorrect too, since collagen is absolutely >massive >compared to a tri-peptide and could not be channeled through a membrane. Just for the sake of clarity, I will repeat AGAIN: I never said collagen (or any other protein) is absorbed intact. Please rejoin the real world of words I've actually typed. (Again, I apologize for being a bit testy, but my family medical epic continues unabated, and I don't seem to have the patience for this sort of junk. If you're going to disagree with me, fine, but at least do me the courtesy of disagreeing with what I've actually said.) - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 wrote: <<<<<<<<<<<,My VIEW, is NOT NOW and NEVER HAS BEEN that collagen (or any other proteins) can be or are absorbed intact from the intestines. I defy you to show me where I said this. What I DID say is that I strongly suspect that pork cracklings have been affected by their high-heat cooking in such a way that the collagen content will be of LESS USE.>>>>>>>>>>> Well, obviously I misunderstood your view. It would be a waste of time for me to try to justify my misunderstanding based on your words or the context in which you stated them, so I won't bother even trying to determine whether it was reasonable or not. In that case, I agree the high-heated cracklings might be of less use, though I'd think it would depend on the digestive system of the individual (I imagine some people could digest it fine). Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 Chris- >In that case, I agree the high-heated cracklings might be of less use, >though I'd think it would depend on the digestive system of the individual >(I imagine some people could digest it fine). It's quite likely that the degree of difference would depend on the individual's digestion, but I don't think it would be as good for anyone, since it seems pretty universal that raw animal foods and animal foods prepared with or to form gelatin are absorbed and utilized better. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 In a message dated 3/9/04 11:31:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, Idol@... writes: > It's quite likely that the degree of difference would depend on the > individual's digestion, but I don't think it would be as good for anyone, > since it seems pretty universal that raw animal foods and animal foods > prepared with or to form gelatin are absorbed and utilized better. I agree, but I find that even medium well or well animal food is important. If you're saying it will not be AS beneficial I have no doubt. But the " no fricken way " comment seemed to indicate that you believed they'd be essentially worthless-- and, while it might be harder to digest and absorb (assuming its somehow been modified to agreggate rather than dissolve in an aqueous environment), I doubt it doesn't remain at least a half-way decent or good source of the amino acids it contains. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 In a message dated 3/11/04 10:47:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, Idol@... writes: > And I doubt it does, regardless of the assayed amino acid content. Unless, > > I suppose, you eat cracklings with some high-quality bone broth or > something else to counteract its poor absorbability. But I guess the > debate has reached an impasse, unless we're willing to do some animal > testing. <g> I'll see if I can hitch up an independent study feeding radioactive cracklings to mice ;-) Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 Chris- >I doubt it doesn't remain at least a half-way decent or good source of >the amino acids it contains. And I doubt it does, regardless of the assayed amino acid content. Unless, I suppose, you eat cracklings with some high-quality bone broth or something else to counteract its poor absorbability. But I guess the debate has reached an impasse, unless we're willing to do some animal testing. <g> - 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.