What's healthier: 90% lean buffalo or a leaner cut of grass-fed ground beef?
September 24, 2010 5:41 PM   Subscribe

What's healthier: 90% lean buffalo or a leaner cut of grass-fed ground beef? Both are from Whole Foods, both come from animals that are fed a vegetarian diet and not given added hormones. I'm wondering about effects on longevity, chronic conditions, heart disease, etc. Also, are chicken/fish healthier than buffalo? I've heard bad things about red meat but I'm not sure how much they apply to buffalo.
posted by JamesJD to Health & Fitness (14 answers total)
 
I don't think there is much data on this.

Buffalo and cow are both meat. Consume ethically and in moderation, and you'll be fine either way.
posted by jrockway at 5:43 PM on September 24, 2010 [1 favorite]


Well, you could compare their ANDI (aggregate nutrient density index) scores, but I'm not a nutrition scientist, and that might just be quackery (though Whole Foods seems to use it as a scale).
posted by dersins at 6:03 PM on September 24, 2010


Theres a further complication to this. You say "buffalo" and "beef" as general terms, but they encompass a very wide range of animal.

Most bison today, especially those used for agriculture, aren't genetically pure bison (this is true of nearly every herd of bison left, unfortunately). They are cross bread with cows, or have been in the past, and as such, are, to varying degrees, more or less cattle like.

Then there are "beefalo" which are a pure breeding hybrid stock which are commonly used in some meat production.

Then there are all the varying different types of cattle. Meat from one stock can be markable different in fat and nutrient content than meat from another stock.

So... this is a way more complicated question than it first appears.
posted by strixus at 6:47 PM on September 24, 2010 [1 favorite]


Response by poster: Damnit, couldn't one of you have said simply "BUFFALO!" ?
posted by JamesJD at 6:49 PM on September 24, 2010


OK, buffalo.

The amount of agita caused to you by this question is probably far more harmful than the marginal health differences between these two grocery products.
posted by chengjih at 7:10 PM on September 24, 2010 [1 favorite]


What you're looking for is info about fat. The fat content of meat is what basically determines how healthy it is. This is why grass fed is better than grain/fed beef. A very basic idea of the healthiness of eating different types of meats would be Fish>Chicken>Beef.
The book that helped me understand a ton about that subject was Fats That Heal, Fats That Kill. Although that book is kind of old now and probably a little outdated. You might look around for something newer or just simply start with Wikipedia's entry on Fatty acid and move on from there. I googled up fatty acids and found this which looks like a really basic primer Essential Fatty Acids
posted by P.o.B. at 7:13 PM on September 24, 2010


Oh, and I think the reason people talk so much about Buffalo, besides taste, is because usually it has more protein and is leaner compared to beef.
posted by P.o.B. at 7:21 PM on September 24, 2010


Aren't the numbers there for this very reason? Wouldn't 95/5 beef be better for you than 90/10 buffalo, since it has less fat?
posted by fiercecupcake at 8:00 PM on September 24, 2010


Response by poster: Regarding the last two responses, these are the intuitions that prompted me to pose this question so that someone who understood nutrition could settle it.
posted by JamesJD at 8:34 PM on September 24, 2010


Kind of a weirdly broad question, since the issue really is how much saturated fat you're eating, and if you need red meat to supply B12 and iron because you aren't getting it from other sources.
posted by oneirodynia at 9:38 PM on September 24, 2010


I don't think there is even any hard evidence saying lean meat is better for you.

Anedoctally speaking, Americans are crazy for lean meat, and they are fat as all heck, and Japanese people make a point out of breeding and eating the fattiest meat possible, and they are very thin.
posted by zachawry at 1:06 AM on September 25, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'm not totally sure what your metrics for "healthier" are, but since you mention heart disease in your question, I'm guessing you're approaching this from a "less saturated fat => less heart disease" perspective? If so, you might want to watch this video, from Dr. Robert Lustig at UCSF, talking about how the fat/heart disease connection isn't actually there.
posted by Alt F4 at 3:24 AM on September 25, 2010


these are the intuitions that prompted me to pose this question so that someone who understood nutrition could settle it.

What are you trying to settle beyond the answers you've received? Basically, it depends. Without further defining your question I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer.
posted by P.o.B. at 1:53 PM on September 25, 2010


"Healthiness" cannot be separated from the rest of your diet, it's not nearly as reductionist as that. I mean, how often, in what quantities, eaten with what?

Generally speaking, anything is fine in moderation. Eat like you grandparents ate, is one theory that has some support. Eat like the hunter/gatherers, is another.

The real point is, what will make the better dish for your intended purpose?
posted by wilful at 8:11 PM on September 26, 2010


« Older How can I troubleshoot this MAC PRO G5 problem?   |   Famous books that are easy to get into. Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.