413188 Tue Jun 19 22:40:42 -0700 2007 21 27 General Chowhounding Topics 0 2676291 Why do people love them so much, when they taste like corrugated cardboard? Would they still eat it, if it was as bad for you as bacon? Also, I recently read the labels for bacon and chicken breasts (at the market), and noticed that per pound, there was more cholesterol in skinless breasts, than for bacon. And mind you, that would be before the bacon was cooked, in which case, much of the elements of bacon would be rendered out. I am assuming that you readers know that cholesterol and fat are two separate things. What's up with that? Tue Jun 19 22:40:42 -0700 2007 105785 fergusmccool 1 2678565 Since no one's replied yet, I can at least partially answer your question with some certainty. If the chicken breasts you're eating when out taste like cardboard, this is due to the poor quality mass production of chickens. It's also probably due to their being overcooked, given people's fear of salmonella, or being cooked and then reheated, doubly drying them out. If you want to try chicken breasts that aren't shriveled like jerky, and you are willing to cook, the best brand on the market today is Rosie's (organic, free range). These cost more than the hyper-industrially produced chickens from Arkansas but you get what you pay for. I know your plight and for the same reason rarely order chicken when out. It just doesn't have that juicy plump goodness that a yummy Rosie's breast has. As for bacon, you're probably less likely to eat the same volume/quantity/weight of bacon that you might chicken. Chicken and bacon are a great combo, by the way - creamed chicken with bacon and corn over polenta comes to mind, and just last night I whipped up some pounded pan fried buttermilk/cornmeal coated (Rosie's) chicken breasts with a bacon/scallion/thyme gravy (from a recent issue of Gourmet). Oops - home cooking! Wed Jun 20 14:13:16 -0700 2007 2676291 103119 Vikzen 2 2678857 While I agree with your overall point, I have to disagree about Rosie's. At least here in the SF Bay Area there are far superior chickens. In particular, air-chilled chickens are better than chickens that are water cooled: the water bath allows juices to leach out and water to soak in, producing chicken that is flabby and waterlogged compared to air-chilled chicken. If they're available, try SmartChicken or Mary's Organic air-chilled chicken. My sister dry brines her chicken, and says when she moved and had to switch from SmartChicken to Rosie's, she was shocked at how much more water the Rosie's exuded during brining. And of course, you're paying by the pound for chicken that's plumped up with water! Wed Jun 20 15:46:49 -0700 2007 2678565 10159 Ruth Lafler 1 2678963 Perhaps you aren't eating chicken breasts that are well prepared. None of the chicken breasts I prepare ever taste like corrugated cardboard, and moreover, tend to be quite enjoyable. I also find chicken breasts to be very versatile and therefore a great staple to have in the house. This is not to mention the fact that they are a good source of protein and easy to prepare on a regular basis and at short notice. To sum it up, I like 'em and unashamedly so. Wed Jun 20 16:24:20 -0700 2007 2676291 82243 ArikaDawn 2 2680038 I agree - my husband prefers dark meat, I love white meat, so a roast chicken is perfect for us. That said, there are a number of dishes I prepare with chicken breasts that leave the meat nice and moist. A new favorite is "marinating" pieces of chicken breasts in yogurt with garlic, etc. and broiling them. Another is panko crusted chicken breasts with pesto. I think the key is not to over cook them - you really have to be careful. I usually Bell & Evans or organic chickens - I really like the ones at Whole Foods, and they also sell boneless chicken thighs, which let you cook them pretty quickly - a good alternative to the breasts. All this aside though, some people just prefer the taste of dark meat. Thu Jun 21 03:56:40 -0700 2007 2678963 10985 MMRuth 1 2679246 Don't know what labels you were looking at. Boneless skinless chicken breasts, raw, have 58mg of cholesterol per 100 grams while raw bacon has 68mg per 100 grams. The differences become far more dramatic once they're cooked as bacon retains far more of its cholesterol than chicken. So, if you don't like chicken breasts (and I'm not a fan, personally, I like thighs) that's fine. But lets keep to actual facts. Wed Jun 20 18:01:35 -0700 2007 2676291 80141 ccbweb 2 2679259 I did not understand why the comparison in the first place.....an 8 ounce portion of chicken served for a meal could never be compared gram per gram...who would ever comsume more than a couple ounces of bacon with eggs at breakfast, or on a club sando???? Wed Jun 20 18:05:12 -0700 2007 2679246 79603 nyfoodjoe 3 2679300 I agree with you...but it irks me when people try to find "facts" to substantiate their personal preferences or tastes. Its enough to have the preference without throwing out inaccurate comparisons, regardless of whether those comparisons would be relevant in the first place. Wed Jun 20 18:20:17 -0700 2007 2679259 80141 ccbweb 1 2679390 F As others have stated if your chicken breasts taste like cardboard, the quality is inferior, they are overcooked, or both. Most people cook breasts to 190-200 and that is just too much in jfood's experience. If they touch 180, that's plenty of heat. In CT Bell and Evans is the brand of choice in casa jfood. Likewise the facts do not support the cholesterol statement. Wed Jun 20 18:52:58 -0700 2007 2676291 11290 jfood 2 2679658 Hmm. I know what I saw in the market, but I don't have that with me. Bacon: 140 mg of cholesterol from one pound. http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/10124.html Chicken breast: 65 mg for 4 oz. (x 4 to equal bacon's one pound weight, above) = 260 mg. http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/109352.html Wed Jun 20 20:59:28 -0700 2007 2679390 105785 fergusmccool 3 2679697 Some people don't watch cholesterol, for one thing. They may care about fat and calories, but not give a second thought to cholesterol. May not be logical; I'm not sure. I do know that when I'm doing Weight Watchers actively, I monitor my fat intake carefully, but I'm not going to be worried too much about cholesterol until and unless my numbers get high. I'm guessing that a lot of people are attracted to white meat chicken for the low fat content and don't care about cholesterol. I'm not a fan of supermarket chicken, any cut. However, get a good chicken, pound the breast and you can make any number of good dishes out of it. Not every food needs to be bursting with flavor to work in a recipe. Wed Jun 20 21:15:47 -0700 2007 2679658 11250 bibi rose 3 2680099 Not sure why you are not using the "yield from 1lb" tab on your site. If you did you would see that bacon comes in at 140mg and chicken at 44mg. Here's another set of site: Bacon raw at 68mg of chol for 100 grams http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c20Zc.html Bacon Pan Fried at 113mg of chol for 100 grams http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c21ue.html Bacon Baked at 107mg of chol for 100 grams http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c21uc.html Chicken breast roasted 85 mg of chol for 100 grams http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c20BL.html BTW - turkey bacon comes in at 90mg of chol for 100 grams. Thu Jun 21 05:08:57 -0700 2007 2679658 11290 jfood 4 2680105 How can 100 grams of roasted chicken have 85mg if one pound has 44mg? Am I reading this wrong? Thu Jun 21 05:12:43 -0700 2007 2680099 10985 MMRuth 5 2680339 po-tay-toe versus po-tah-toe. Two different web sites, two different methodologies, two different answers. And Jfood agrees if 100 grams has 85mg then one pound has circa 385mg. But directionally both tell us that bacon has more, not less, chol than chick. Thu Jun 21 07:07:52 -0700 2007 2680105 11290 jfood 5 2680974 It may not explain the difference completely, but cooked meat loses water, so the other components become proportionately more per weight. Thu Jun 21 09:50:46 -0700 2007 2680105 10159 Ruth Lafler 6 2681027 You're right on target, Ruth. In some of the above comparison, the bacon was cooked and the chicken was not. Gets confusing. But, jfood and common sense tell us what we need to know on this one. Boneless, skinless chicken breast cooked in a reasonable manner has far less cholesterol in it than does bacon. Also, cholesterol aside, look closely at the saturated fat numbers. Thu Jun 21 10:03:31 -0700 2007 2680974 80141 ccbweb 7 2681042 CC look at the product as well. Yes we all LOVE bacon more, but heck it's not that healthy. But jfood thinks that in his four-URL post he had three cooked products: Fried bacon -113 Baked bacon - 107 Roasted chicken - 85 Ah that these number were different and that bacon was healthier than chicken, what a great dinner for all Thu Jun 21 10:08:31 -0700 2007 2681027 11290 jfood 1 2679863 In Chinese culture/cuisine of old, the dark meat was favored over the white meat. The white meat was for the dogs...I grew up eating the dark and agree with you in regards to the taste of most chicken breasts. I have had some good ones, but it is less than the majority of the time. Wed Jun 20 22:50:07 -0700 2007 2676291 77080 justagthing 1 2679970 blah = a good description flavour wise of chicken breasts. I find that when I prepare them, they can be very juicy. I brine them 30 mins - 1 hour before cooking time and I always make sure to not overcook and take the chicken off the grill or stove a few minutes before finished so they can finish cooking while resting. However they still don't have that much flavour. I think the most flavourful poultry breast I have ever had was capon and that's kind of hard to find. I will take dark meat ANY day over chicken breasts. However chicken breasts are fine to eat once in a while when you want to watch what you are eating. Thu Jun 21 00:40:10 -0700 2007 2676291 24546 bitsubeats 2 2682856 Brining is a good option. I also LOVE chicken breasts poached in chicken broth... For me simple and good, served with a little mayo to dip in... Childhoos favorite. Thu Jun 21 18:37:43 -0700 2007 2679970 15572 Emme 1 2680372 I prefer white meat because it tastes better to me, nothing to do with cholesterol or fat. And chicken breasts are simply better with certain dishes like chic marsala or chic stirfry. Personally, I find dark meat unappetizing in texture and taste. Thu Jun 21 07:16:42 -0700 2007 2676291 76186 moymoy 1 2681037 Actually, a chicken breast basted with olive oil, sea salt, coarse black pepper, garlic and rosemary straight off the grill is divine. Now, a boiled breast without seasoning is tasteless. I think the worst thing about chicken is handling it raw. Other than that, I like it as a versatile source of protein that works with pretty much any cuisine, any spice, any preparation. Thu Jun 21 10:05:49 -0700 2007 2676291 76025 mojoeater