Wrong thought process on amino acid profile. Very similar to a top sirloin steak. At least for a plan serving of pork skin. Not sure how frying might change that.. so I’m back to my theory that it’s just the higher fat:protein ratio that is sparking that disclaimer. Which I think is really cool. Food brands have gotten away for too long with calling foods “high protein” when they have less protein than fat (I’m looking at you Big Peanut Butter).SAWCE wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:05 amNever eaten pork rinds, but just scoped out a few nutrition labels across brands. Didn’t see that disclaimer, but my only thought is that maybe it’s because the fat content is almost as high as the protein, so you’re getting more fat calories than protein caloriesD Griff wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 9:30 am
Not much to get, they're just a worse alternative to chips.
One thing I've always wondered though, most rinds from gas stations and such show having a decent protein content on the nutrition facts but then have a disclaimer that it isn't a meaningful protein source. Anyone know what gives?
Animal protein should be animal protein from a bioavailability stand point. I’ll look at the amino acid profile of pork skin and see if maybe being skin vs muscle/other organ means it’s not a complete protein like every other meat product is.
But yeah, my initial thought is that it’s just too high in fat to be a viable protein source, unless you’re in keto diet mode like Brad said.
I had a quick thought that maybe what’s in the bag of fried pork rinds isn’t actually pork skin, but quick scan of a few labels were all pretty basic: fried pork skin, salt, smoke flavor. Nothing really too them.
Have a brand in mind that has that disclaimer? Would be cool to look at their directly. I looked at Utz, Mission, and some smaller boutique brand.