Calorie Counting and Thanksgiving

photo: Thanksgiving Turkey, Tim Sackton via flickr creative commons
photo: Thanksgiving Turkey, Tim Sackton via flickr creative commons

Not sure how you feel about this one, but the folks I spend Thanksgiving with have absolutely no interest in counting the calories on their Thanksgiving plate. They want to gossip and tell jokes and watch football and relax and most of all enjoy the day. No politics. And no calories. Should yours truly even mention the word, I would be chastised, ostracized, shunned, and censored.

Now I love to talk about calories. I actually went back to school to study nutrition so I could learn how count calories on my Thanksgiving plate. I’ve subsequently learned the hard way however that talking about calories is not appreciated. Especially at Thanksgiving. But I do like to check for Thanksgiving calorie counts that circulate in the blogosphere around this time of the year.

Clearly aimed at the shock and awe effect, the highest count I’ve ever seen was 4500 calories. Having worked with clients diagnosed with eating disorders I know it’s physically impossible to fit that many calories into a normal sized stomach and to accomplish the goal requires purging. That many calories is possible over the course of a day. Professional swimmers or football players eat that much or more on a regular basis. But not at a single sitting.

The New York Times published a good read by Tara Parker Pope back in 2012 How Many Calories Do We Really Eat at Thanksgiving? She also questioned that shock and awe number and put together her own gluttonous Thanksgiving plate which she detailed in the link. Best she could do was about 2500 calories.

One of my favorite classics cookery books The Good Housekeeping All-American Cookbook was published in 1989. The book documents American cooking and American celebration meals. The date is crucial because calories were just beginning to appear in recipes but counting had not yet been politicized and calorie shaming was still in its infancy. The editors at GH just ran the numbers and shared results with us. Refreshingly honest and transparent. Adding up the calories for that gorgeous Thanksgiving spread, the number comes to just under 1900 calories.

EatingWell is one of my favorite food magazines. It’s written for readers who are as interested in good taste and they are in good health. The magazine ran a cover story in 2012 “A Simple Celebration” which qualifies as the most austere Thanksgiving meal I’ve ever seen in print – 1074 calories.

Calories aren’t so prominent for Thanksgiving 2017. Here’s a smattering of what just came up in a google search. Count your blessing, not your calories … Burning off that 1600 calorie meal … Forget the calories and add on flavor … Couldn’t find a single shock and awe sensational number this year.

Putting calories into perspective is a healthy move. I like counting because calories are my metric of choice for portions sizing. But shaming and sensationalizing are not healthy and I’m happy to see both going away. Accurately counting calories is not easy. Accurately assessing how much folks actually eat is not easy. And of course figuring out how what folks eat relates to their health is wicked hard. So this year I’m thankful to see less shock and awe calorie counting. It’s about time.

Digiprove sealCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2017

French Macarons and Added Sugars

 

McDonalds Pastry Selection, Avenue des Champs-Élysées, Paris. @gourmetmetrics

McDonalds Pastry Selection, Avenue des Champs-Élysées, Paris.
@gourmetmetrics

 A beautiful pastry selection. Wouldn’t you agree?  We took the picture during a recent trip to Paris. And yes the pastry selection really was in McDonalds. And yes that McDonalds really is on the Champs-Élysées just about a block down from the Arc de Triomphe.

Now check out those 6 plates in the center. Those are plates of French Macarons. See the two plates in different hues of green. Then a plate of vibrant pink. And two more plates of chocolate-browns and one of cream. All beautifully sculpted and artfully arranged. All perfect. And all tasting deliciously sweet.

If you were standing in front of that gorgeous display, how many would you eat? Just between you and me, I don’t have a well developed sweet tooth so a good French macaron is almost too sweet for me. One or two is all I can eat at a time.

Now if you have a well developed sweet tooth and are feeling an irresistible urge to indulge, here’s the good news. You don’t have to go to Paris to savor the delicacy. There are stores in New York and other metropolitan cities dedicated to Macarons. Specialty manufacturers have picked up on the trend and providing packaged Macarons in stores and via the internet. Websites like Food Network or Epicurious also feature recipes for making Macarons at home.

The cookie is sweet, light, airy, and dainty. Made with sugar, almond meal (no flour and therefore no wheat), egg whites, cream, butter, and flavorings, the list of ingredients is straightforward and simple.

Had I been at a McDonald’s here in New York, calories for these Macarons would be easy to access. Several cities including New York City require it and McDonald’s has decided to be proactive posting nutrient information in restaurants and online. But Paris has no such municipal regulations so no calories and no other nutrient data.

Based on comparing data from boutique providers and recipe nutrient tags, here’s my guesstimate for my two French Macarons. Weights can vary of course but depending on selection one can expect 5 to 6 Macarons per 100 grams. So for calories let’s say 70 to 80 per each or 140 to 160 calories for two.

As for sugars, it’s safe to assume the carbohydrate is all added sugar. The other ingredients (almond meal, egg whites, cream, butter) are not carbohydrate sources except for just a whisper of lactose from the heavy cream. Good news for celiacs and those with a wheat allergy because Macarons are both gluten free and contain no wheat. Bad news for folks with a nut or milk allergy.

But who really cares? I do. But I’m a self confessed nutrition nerd. So who else cares?

A group of committed health professional food activists care. They believe their duty is to help others eat better and healthier. They care a lot. Then there’s a group made up of food manufacturers and restaurants. This group cares too but for completely different reasons.

Now you may be asking what does all this have to do with French Macarons?

Like so many other packages on the shelf, there’s added sugars in French Macaron. Quite a lot of added sugars actually. Sugar by weight is over 40% of the macaron’s total weight. Or calories from added sugars are over 40% of the total calories. However you measure it, that’s a lot of sweet.

The government has already spent significant resources constructing the new regulations. Manufacturers are now being asked to spend significant dollars to research and update their labels. Soon it will be our turn. Were consumers willing to invest the time to read and understand labels, the investment would be easy to justify. Especially if the information transmitted resulted in a decrease in obesity rates.

But here’s the catch. Will listing added sugar grams on the label discourage folks from eating too many French macarons? That’s the crucial question. Personality, I don’t think so.

Do you think the folks who just love these sweet delicate little treats will pay much attention and eat less?

Digiprove sealCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2017

OMG Did my Roast Chicken Just Get Healthier?

watermarked2016-10-08-1257

Here’s a picture of my beautifully roasted chicken right out of the oven.

Now feast your eyes on that lovely crispy skin. Like my granddaddy always said “Skin’s the best part.” And my granddaddy was always right.

Not everyone agrees however. Many health professionals along with some of my zealous colleagues still advise us to discard the skin. Current USDA MyPlate handouts and the 2015 Dietary Guidelines continue to recommend “lean” proteins. And lean always means skinless chicken breast when referring to poultry.

Now I’m not sure how you’ve done it, but for me I’ve always served my roast chicken with skin intact. My foodie friends and the chefs I know also honor the whole bird. Besides being absolutely delicious, the skin protects the chicken as it roasts keeping the meat moist and flavorful.

Officially we’ve been a fat phobia nation for a while now. Back in 1980 when the first dietary guidelines were published, Guideline #3 said it all: avoid too much fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol.

But another 10 years passed before the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA) authorized the FDA to regulate labels for packaged foods and we actually start having food rules. Now I’m the first to agree that a few good rules isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but some of these rules like criteria required for labeling a food healthy were draconian.

Industry insiders used to joke that the surest way to guarantee a food offering failed was to label it healthy and health messaging started to develop a reputation as the kiss of death. Using low fat as the most significant market for a healthy food meant avocados were not healthy. Neither were nuts. And even a simple green salad vinaigrette dressing could not be labeled healthy.

Like all research, nutrition science continued to forge ahead and a better understanding of fats began to emerge. The low fat kiss of death criteria however remained cast in regulatory concrete.

Then in September 2016, the FDA announced its intention to review the rules for healthy. The process is going to take years, but in the meantime, we have this interim statement:

Foods that use the term “healthy” on their labels that are not low in total fat should have a fat profile makeup of predominantly mono and polyunsaturated fats (i.e., sum of monounsaturated fats and polyunsaturated fats are greater than the total saturated fat content of food).

Since most folks don’t even know that these rules exist, it’s worth asking what difference does it makes. Most of my foodies friends for example are not paying much attention and could care less what the FDA decides to do.

Being an RDN however I really do care and here’s why.

Dietary rules and guidelines impact public policy. They are written into federally mandated programs like school nutrition. They regulate nutrition labels on packaged food. And effective next year, the rules will be extended to restaurant menu labels.

But getting back to my roast chicken, the FDA interim statement has a significant impact on whether or not it’s healthy to eat the skin.

The fats in my roasted chicken are primarily in the skin with the rest marbled into the leg muscle. That’s why the skinless breast was lauded in the first place. Dry and tasteless but no fat.

Now let’s take a closer look at the fat profile for a roasted chicken. Total fat is composed of saturated fats and unsaturated fats. Mono-unsaturated fats and poly-unsaturated added together equal total unsaturated fats. When we compare the two values, we can determine which type of fat predominates. Are there more saturated fats? Or more unsaturated fats?

Some folks find it easier to think in terms of a ratio. My roasted chicken has a good ratio. For every gram of saturated fats, we have over 2 grams of unsaturated fats. Clearly the unsaturated fats predominate. And that ratio looks pretty good to my eye.

The FDA doesn’t directly regulate recipe tags, but folks like me who develop recipe tags need to keep a watchful eye on the rules. Personally I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I would prefer that the FDA did less micro-managing. On the other hand food manufacturers need to be held accountable and a few good rules helps keep them honest.

But I’m thrilled the FDA has decided to review and revising the rules. It will probably take a couple of years before they decide what those revisions will be, but in the meantime it looks like my roasted chicken most certainly did get a little healthier.

BUY GOOD STUFF.    The breed of the chicken determines the flavor. My preference is a chicken that grows slowly. Heritage breeds are grown here in the states but most are descended from a French breed called cou nu or naked neck. This “slow grow” bird takes almost twice the time to reach market weight. The birds are not cheap because they require more feed, fuel, water, and land per pound of meat to sustain their growth. But for folks like me who appreciate a really flavorful bird, the extra dollars are well spent.

COUNT WHAT MATTERS.  Nutrition Facts per 5.5 ounce serving roast chicken: 350 calories, 21 grams fat, 0g carbohydrates, 38 grams protein. That serving size reflects 1/8 of a whole chicken that weighed  about 4 pounds as purchased raw.

Fat breakdown for those 21 grams total fat is 6 grams saturated and 13 grams unsaturated (5 grams poly and 8 grams mono). In other words, unsaturated fats predominate in a ratio of 2.2 to 1.

 

 

 

 

Digiprove sealCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2017

Do You Like Your Salads Well Dressed?

image

Summer is the season for salads.

The northeast is hot and humid during July and August and the last thing anyone feels like doing is spending hours in a hot kitchen. We want cool and refreshing. And we want it now.

Local farmers markets provide a variety of fresh greens. After that, it depends on what is available, seasonal, and handy.

But whatever you decide to throw in, please don’t be stingy with the salad dressing. Salads don’t make it to my table unless they’re well dressed.

Pictured above is a salad I put together recently. Red leaf Boston lettuce, small tender inner leaves of an escarole, some avocado, a couple of hydroponic tomato, a scallion, one whole chopped cucumber, a hard cooked egg, some nice canned tonnino, some chickpeas, and one of my favorite Italian imports, Roman artichokes that still have their stems intact.

For the vinaigrette, I make my own with California cold pressed Arbequina olive oil, imported sherry or wine vinegar (7 – 8% acidity), and salt. And I used a very generous tablespoon of my artisan vinaigrette for each 100 grams (3 1/2 ounces) salad.

Wait a minute! You’re a dietitian aren’t you?  Isn’t your job to remind us not to use too much oil and to cut back on salt?

My more zealous colleagues do just that. Especially those who work in weight loss or food addiction. Other colleagues separate healthy fats from unhealthy fats but will still recommend restraint. But not me. So I’m the first to admit that what I’m about to say is controversial.

Because flavor reigns supreme at my table, I use LOTS of vinaigrette because my well dressed salads tastes better than a salad topped a skimpy amount of dressing or worse some of that fat free stuff.

Putting an irresistibly delicious salad on the table makes it easy for folks to eat more vegetables. And getting folks to eat more vegetables is what we want right?

Found a wonderful quote in my facsimile edition of The Original Picayune Creole Cookbook originally published in 1901. The book says it is an old Spanish proverb. Who knows? Whatever the source it’s makes good culinary sense.

To make a perfect salad there should be a miser for vinegar, a spendthrift for oil, a wise man for salt and a madcap to stir all these ingredients, and mix them well together.

So please unless you’re committed to a low fat diet or limited fats to promote weight loss, don’t worry about olive oil. The fats in olive oil are mostly unsaturated and have a favorable fatty acid ratio.

Salad greens and vegetables are rich in potassium, fibers, and phytonutrients. Plus carotenoids are better absorbed in the presence of fat. Add some protein to your well dressed salad as I did with a locator mix of tuna, egg, and chickpeas. Serve with crusty whole grain bread and voilá a complete meal.

We normally eat about 2 1/2 cups or so for a meal or roughly 500 calories per plate not counting bread.

COUNT WHAT MATTERS

Heres how the conventional nutrition facts label looks for 1 cup of my well dressed salad:  16g total fat, 250mg sodium, 300 mg potassium, 6g total carbohydrate, 2g fibers, 0g added sugars, 10g protein.

We used to obsess about calories from fat and I’m so relieved the FDA has finally agreed to update the label. This well dressed salad clocks in at 68% calories from fat with a fat profile that reflects predominantly unsaturated fatty acids. Many of my zealous colleagues still obsess about sodium and, don’t get me wrong, for some sodium restriction is critically important. For most of us however it’s probably more important to take a look at how we’re using salt.

 

 

Healthy versus Healthy.

image

Most of us agree now that healthy eating is important. This is new. Just a few years ago, labeling something healthy was the kiss of death. But times have changed.

Is it a seismic shift? Time will tell on that one, but observers agree that it’s big and important and requires attention.

The good news is we all want to eat healthy. The bad news is we can’t agree on what exactly healthy is.

Take supermarkets. The average supermarket has 45,000 individual items. At least that was what the Food Marketing Institute estimated when they did the count for 2013. And every one of those products has a label and many have additional certifications.

Or farmer’s markets. Plenty of good stuff to buy at least in the summer. But the produce is dirty and untrimmed and needs to be stored correctly and cooked. Not easy tasks without a good kitchen set up and lots of time to shop.

Or restaurants. Cooking not required. But you still have to make choices and decide what to order.

Now imagine how much harder all this is if you never took a home economics course or learned cooking skills? Or if you had never seen a farm or had a home garden? Or if you never met anyone who stocked a root cellar or made cheese or baked bread? We have a situation where one to two generations comes to the marketplace without these basic skills.

What to eat is a tough decision. And sometimes all you have to go on is an image or a label.

People may know the words they want but they need help translating the words to the table. Now this is good for those of us in the translation business. We can plate healthy to fit what the person says they want. And that’s good for business.

But labels are like metaphors. They stand for something in the real world. Think about it this way. In Ireland, grass-fed isn’t used as a marketing label. It’s simply the way it’s done. At least for now.

Accessible, normal things don’t need labels. But today’s consumers don’t bring basic cooking and food skills to the table and so they depend on labels.  Healthy is defined by so many different labels today that I could not find room to fit them all in the infograph. Like I say, it’s good for those of us in the translation business.

Confusion continues and labels sell products and marketing works.

And the bright shiny silver lining to the dark cloud of confusion is most people may actually really be eating healthier today. The competition between contenders for the best healthy diet is fierce, but as long as it uses real food and more fruits and vegetables and whole grains, at least the essentials will be in place.

Can we eat healthy and high fat?

summer flounder | gourmet metrics
summer flounder | gourmet metrics

 

Wednesday is fish night and summer flounder is what I served for supper a couple weeks ago. The piece I picked out weighing about 2/3 pound (300 grams) so at $15 a pound, I paid about $10.

At my table small is beautiful, so a little bit of protein goes a long way. Just the two of us that night and we split the flounder. That piece pictured above was my half. Cooked and ready to serve let’s say about 4 ounces (120 grams) which by American standards is on the skimpy side. But taste wise and protein wise (15 grams) it’s enough for me.

Some of my more zealous colleagues look at flounder as a low calorie / low fat option because the fish is so lean. Not me. Now I love flounder or fluke as some call it because the flesh is so delicate and the taste so subtle, but even this eater has to admit that all by itself flounder tends to be on the bland side.

My way to cook flounder is to pan-fry in olive oil, season with salt, kiss with pepper, finish with whisper of unsalted butter, and serve with a twist of lemon. Delicious but not low fat.

For the rest of the plate, steamed local spinach and farro. Local fresh spinach has plenty of flavor and to my taste at least needs nothing else, not even salt. I added some farro for whole grain carbohydrate but I took the picture before putting it on the plate. We finished off with a salad of finely diced kohlrabi, red Boston lettuce, Napa cabbage, and a couple of hydro-tomatoes dressed with my vinaigrette. And local blueberries for dessert.

The calorie count ran around 650 per person. Not a big meal by American standards but more than enough for us. It was a work night and we prefer not to have a heavy meal before going to bed.

Sounds pretty healthy doesn’t it? Let’s take a look.

Protein. A modest portion. Bonus points for seafood.

Vegetables. 6 different kinds of vegetables, total of 2 cups. Bonus points for dark green.

Fruit. Blueberries, rich in Anthocyanins, 1/2 cup. Bonus points for whole fruit.

Whole Grain. Farro is a wheat (not gluten free) and one of my favorite ancient grains. Bonus points for whole grain.

Fatty Acid Ratio: excellent which means more olive oil and less butter.

Sodium. 780 mg for the meal and 33% DV.

And for added value the meal qualifies as sustainable and affordable. In New York, flounder is local and not currently overfished. And despite the high price per pound, a modest serving size makes the cost manageable.

But there is always that question from the back of the room. How about fat? No problem. I’m a nutrition nerd and I always have the numbers. The percentage is above the recommended cut off which puts my meal into the high fat range. Not a meal for someone who needs to adhere to a low fat regime or who believes only low fat meals are healthy.

And because regulatory compliance is cast in concrete leaving little flexibility for humans to exercise judgment, labeling my meal healthy would be illegal.

It’s what I call healthy versus healthy.

And that’s why, when it comes to my own table, I exercise culinary judgment.

“Judgment is to law as water is to crops. It should not be surprising that law has become brittle, and society along with it.” The Death of Common Sense, Philip K. Howard, 1994

Okay three cheers for butter! But now what are we suppose to do?

My mother and I disagreed about a lot of things, but butter was right up there near the top of the list. She thought margarine was healthier and I thought butter tasted better. Kids never win these debates, but you know exactly what I did as soon as I grew up. That’s right, I used butter. OMG did I use butter!

Nothing like living and cooking in France to encourage a lavish use of butter and we were going through a pound a week easy. As all good things come to an end, so did my butter indulgence. My cooking horizons expanded. Olive oil moved into my pantry replacing butter as my fat of choice. And along the way, before I actually went back to study nutrition, I picked up one of those pivotal books in my culinary nutrition education.

The original Laurel’s Kitchen came out of the Berkeley counter culture vegetarian movement and was published 1976. My version, The New Lauren’s Kitchen was published about 10 years later and is still in print today, a testament to the book’s enduring value and our collective hunger for healthy eating.  Reduced fat was the nutritional byword at that time, but even back then we loved out butter and Laurel offered an ingenious solution.

As she put it in the preface for the Better-Butter recipe: “This is surely one of the most popular of all our recipes. It offers an easy spreading alternative to margarine, which can otherwise be the most highly processed — and salted — food in a natural foods kitchen. Better-Butter combines butter (for flavor) with the unsaturated fats of good-quality oil. The result is a spread that’s as low in saturated fat as margarine, but without hydrogenation, processing, and additives.”

Note that the comparison with margarine was made prior to the arrival of soft spreads.

The battle between butter versus margarine rages to this day.  Industrial production versus the real thing. Fresh, natural, organic butter churned from grass fed, pastured raised cows versus phytosterol enhanced, expeller expressed soft spread from nonGMO grown, mono-unsaturated canola oil.

Being older now and hopefully wiser, this dietitian still finds herself sitting right in the middle in the line of fire from both sides. There is evidence to support the argument that saturated fats should be minimized and replaced with polyunsaturated fats. And there is evidence to support the argument that saturated fats are actually not the most toxic natural substance known to mankind and their potential for harm has been overstated.

If butter is your thing, this dietitian says enjoy it but exercise moderation just in case. If soft spread is your thing, this dietitian says enjoy it and feel confident that the product has been engineered to eliminate those truly unhealthy hydrogenated fatty acids.

And for those of you looking for a third option, give better-butter a try. Half butter and half olive oil is a credible, good tasting alternative. The original recipe used volume measure, but being the nutrition nerd I am, my preference is to use the scale and do weight measurement. Both ways work.

Better-butter is a great tasting homemade do it yourself alternative.

And Laurel was right about one more thing. Even just out of the refrigerator, better-butter really is easy spreading. And that is the really cool part.

It’s illegal to label my green salad healthy!

mesclum mix | gourmet-metrics
mesclum mix | gourmet-metrics

 

Like pornography, healthy food might be tough to define but you know it when you see it. Now a simple green salad should be the picture of healthy. Right? But since healthy means different things in different contexts, defining healthy gets confusing at times.

Take the green salad I am serving tonight. The choice of greens always depends on availability so some mesclun from my local greenmarket will serve as the base. A handful on each plate, a few tomato pieces (still not seasonal I admit), some thinly sliced scallion, and for the final touch, a tablespoon or two home crafted vinaigrette made with a fine California Arbequina, some sherry vinegar, and salt. Delicious? Yes. Healthy? Of course. Who would say no?

Those rich dark greens and shades of almost purple are the colors of healthy.

Not boring or austere thanks to good oil, salt, and pristine greens. Not too much sodium. Nutrition points for dark green vegetables. Expensive, local, fresh, and natural. Organic? Now that one I am not completely sure about. The mesclun is probably organic. But tomatoes and scallions? Just not sure.

And the vinaigrette is not unprocessed. Grinding olives to olive oil is complex, but the oil is unfiltered with shades of green in the sunlight and was pressed within the last 6 months so I am am going to say “good” processed. As far as the salt and the vinegar, those two products are complex too.

Looking at the nutrition numbers, the fatty acid ratio is excellent. Well above the ratio recommended by the Healthy Eating Index. This ration is a calculation used by nutritionist nerds like me to evaluate the quality of the fat for clients who want to reduce dietary saturated fat.

My plate of salad counts for about 180 calories out of my usual dinner of 700 to 800 calories.

So far so good. Eating salads before the meal makes good nutrition sense for two reasons. First it is nutrient dense. And second, salads fill you up so you are less likely to devour the main course.

But think about this scenario. And until the FDA finalizes nutrition guidelines for restaurant menu labeling, we won’t know for sure. As an off the shelf product, my salad could not be labeled healthy. Sodium is okay, but there is too much fat and too much saturated fat. What that means is that if the restrictive labeling criteria remain intact when the restaurant regulations are finalized, it would be technically illegal for a restaurant or deli take out to label my salad healthy. That’s what I mean about healthy meaning different things in different contexts.

I am still going to give it a healthy thumbs up.

How about you?

Empty Calories? Give Me a Break.

apples & baking dish for clafouti
apples & baking dish for clafouti

As my more zealous colleagues like to point out, desserts are fats, sugars, and refined carbohydrates with minimal nutrition return for the calorie investment. Agreed. Desserts can certainly be indulgent. Granted, desserts are usually high in sugar and fat. But what exactly makes the calories empty? Boggles my simplistic mind.

MyPlate states that solid fats and added sugars are empty. But I have a hard time visualizing just what that means. The presence of butterfat in whole milk does not negate the value of the protein does it? With or without fats, milk has nutritional value.

MyPlate also states that some “empty calories” are okay and can be limited by eating small portions. This approach makes more sense to my simplistic mind. I struggle with the concept of “empty” but appreciate the permission to make my own discretionary decision. Eating my food whole and controlling my own portion size has always made good commonsense to me.

Consider my apple clafouti. Small can be beautiful. Especially when it is sweet, custardy, made with baked apples, fine fresh butter, brown sugar, perfumed with cinnamon, and accented with just a pinch of salt. Whole wheat flour adds better nutrition than white refined all purpose.

For those people who sit at my table and like a generous serving, my sweet, custardy clafouti will cost them about 270 calories. Nutrition return will be 7 grams protein from milk & eggs and 4 grams fiber from the apples & white whole wheat.  If you choose to eat fewer calories, remember small is beautiful and have a smaller portion. Fewer calories and less saturated fats, but also less protein and fiber. Not empty. Just less of everything.

Roast Chicken Skin is Best Part!

Roast Chicken | gourmet-metrics
Roast Chicken | gourmet-metrics

This is a beautiful Poulet Rouge Fermiere roast chicken, one of winter’s pleasures. The spring equinox is approaching, so this may be my last indulgence until fall.

My grandfather always said the skin was the best part of any bird. He makes a good point. Some of my zealous colleagues recommend throwing the skin out, but I see things a little different.

Skin protects the meat during the roasting process. It would be one dry, desiccated bird without that protective layer of lubricating fat. Throwing out the skin is disrespectful to the chicken, but it’s also expensive. I pay a lot for my bird. I expect my chickens to be well fed without growth stimulants and that means more expense for the farmer who raises them. Paying $5.00 per pound and throwing out the skin means throwing away good money.

My counter to both cost and my zealous colleagues is to serve smaller portions. This bird weighed three pounds as purchased. After roasting with resulting moisture loss and refuse (bones), the yield is closer to 50% of the purchased weight. So I made 6 servings. Plenty of protein, less fat and saturated fat, crispy skin, and deliciously roasted flavorful chicken.

Roast Chicken Plate | gourmet-metrics
Roast Chicken Plate | gourmet-metrics

Granted, that serving did look small, so I filled out the plate with lots broccoli raab and a basmati / wild rice mixture. With a little bowl of soup to open and fresh pineapple to finish, my meal was complete. Not exactly a low fat meal, but manageable in terms of saturated fats. And significantly lowering sodium than any restaurant meal. All for roughly 750 calories. That is what I call win / win.

For nutrition enthusiasts and zealous colleagues, the labeling data is listed below.   Small is beautiful works for me.

Nutrition Facts per 1 serving chicken with skin  (120g):  Calories 270, Fat 16g, Saturated Fat 4.5g, Sodium 135mg, Carbohydrate 0g, Fiber 0g, Protein 29g.  Vitamin A 2%, Vitamin C 0%, Calcium 2%, Iron 8%