Re: Guts and Grease wild game fat chart

[Guest guest]

OK, so I'm answering one of my own questions <g>.

I wrote:

Does anyone know how large the sampling was, of the wild game that the USDA

used to establish their nutrient profiles?

My reply:

I was just taking a closer look at the database and see that they do show

sample count, which I assume is sample *size* for each value given. So, for

example, the lamb kidney lipid values come from a sampling size of 0-8

samples, where the LNA value was derived from 3 samples and the cholesterol

value was derived from 8. I'm not sure how to translate values from " 0 "

samples (there are a lot of them in the PDF I downloaded with wild game

profiles!). I'll take a look at the USDA literature on this later when I get

a chance. Or maybe someone here already knows this?

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://www.suscom-maine.net/~cfisher/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>

>Does anyone know how large the sampling was, of the wild game that the USDA

>used to establish their nutrient profiles? Any idea what region, say, the

>deer came from, and what breed they were? When I type in 'venison' I get

>nothing, but when I type in 'deer' I get " Game meat, deer, raw " with no

>mention if it's white tailed deer, mule deer, etc. It also makes no mention

>of what the animal's diet may have been, although, if it's truly wild game I

>guess they wouldn't know. I wonder if the deer used in the USDA database had

>similar diets to the deer consumed by native americans for centuries? And

>thus, if their lipid profiles would be similar?

Well, here in the Midwest, you've got to figure that all venison is

partially grain-fed. There are a lot more corn fields now than then.

(Probably more deer too, as the abundance of game the first colonists

found was an artifact of the plague-caused population collapse of the

Indians). So I doubt the lipid profiles would be quite as good.

--

Quick

www.en.com/users/jaquick

" One of these days someone smarter and younger and more articulate

than I is going to get through to the American people just how really

messed up it has become. And when that happens, the American people are

going to rise up like that football crowd in Cleveland and run both

teams off the field. " --Sen. Zell

[Guest guest]

I can say that those charts get quoted over and over and not really checked

very well. Case in point: It turns out that eggs (commercial ones anyway)

have about half the cholesterol that was always quoted. It was found out

mainly by accident when a guy claimed to have 'special' eggs that were low

cholesterol -- they were in fact as low as he claimed. And so were

'regular' eggs, when they got re-tested finally.

I think the reason for that one was that when eggs were originally tested

they were free-range (most chickens were, way back when). My chickens have

REALLY thick yolked eggs! But the tables don't distinguish anything about

the chicken's diet.

-- Heidi S

At 08:42 AM 3/27/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>OK, so I'm answering one of my own questions <g>.

>

>I wrote:

>Does anyone know how large the sampling was, of the wild game that the USDA

>used to establish their nutrient profiles?

>

>My reply:

>I was just taking a closer look at the database and see that they do show

>sample count, which I assume is sample *size* for each value given. So, for

>example, the lamb kidney lipid values come from a sampling size of 0-8

>samples, where the LNA value was derived from 3 samples and the cholesterol

>value was derived from 8. I'm not sure how to translate values from " 0 "

>samples (there are a lot of them in the PDF I downloaded with wild game

>profiles!). I'll take a look at the USDA literature on this later when I get

>a chance. Or maybe someone here already knows this?

>

>

>Suze Fisher

>Web Design & Development

><http://www.suscom-maine.net/~cfisher/>http://www.suscom-maine.net/~cfisher/

>mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

In regards to the USDA database Heidi writes:

>>>I can say that those charts get quoted over and over and not really

checked

very well.

***That's what I was thinking...and as a result arguments for a million

things under the sun seem to be made based on nebulous data. Or, at minimum,

data that's not verified or questioned.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

What? Are you serious? A august government body like the USDA having

flawed charts?! Nah...can't be true....:-)

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 07:55:24 -0500 " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...>

writes:

In regards to the USDA database Heidi writes:

>>>I can say that those charts get quoted over and over and not really

checked

very well.

***That's what I was thinking...and as a result arguments for a million

things under the sun seem to be made based on nebulous data. Or, at

minimum,

data that's not verified or questioned.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...