Kangaroo meat, cheap, healthy and better for the environment?

tryagain on 16/02/2020 - 09:29

So the discussion of plant based meat alternatives and their benefits lead me back to thinking about trying some kangaroo meat, a price check reveals it is cheaper than beef, it is low in fat and high in protein, is "free range", Kangaroo's are better for climate change than beef, and due to being wild as opposed to farmed, cause less issues with the environment.

I am thinking of substituting a few mince based dishes (Nachos & Bolognaise) to start with and see if the family notices/complains.

Does anyone here eat skippy, what are your reasons and any tips or good recipes for using it?

Food & Grocery

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 16/02/2020 - 09:37
    +12

    If you're new to it, make sure to season it. Then do it again.

    It is a very gamy meat, however, I know a few people who eat kangaroo the same way I consume beef.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/02/2020 - 13:43
      +5

      The other option is not to cook it at all. The smell that emanates when cooking roo meat is enough to make me gag.The only times I have enjoyed it is as sashimi (at Nobu) and cured (at Vue de Monde).

      • [Deactivated] on 16/02/2020 - 15:25
        +4

        And tartare.

      • StonedWizard on 18/02/2020 - 15:39
        +6

        Why is Jar Jar being down voted?

        He/She is just stating an opinion.

        • sss333 on 19/02/2020 - 09:08

          Didn't downvote JJB, but surely you've been on OzBargain long enough to know that people downvote others for stating opinions they don't like.

    • Leeroy Jenkins on 16/02/2020 - 18:48
      +3

      I find it nice with a bit of cumin powder.

      It definitely doesn't taste as good as beef but the low fat nature of it can help people who count macros work it into their diet easily.

    • HighAndDry on 17/02/2020 - 00:20
      +2

      Honestly I love the gamey-ness of the flavour, though it's too tough to be used in all the same ways I'd use beef.

    • jimdotpud on 17/02/2020 - 11:42
      +2

      yep gamy….we have on numerous occasions, swapped out beef for Roo steaks. I quite like it.

      • [Deactivated] on 19/02/2020 - 05:48

        What does gamy mean? Is that got anything to do with RPG?

        • [Deactivated] on 19/02/2020 - 13:12
          +1

          The term "gamey" comes from the concept of livestock vs "game animals" That is, wild caught animals whose meat is far stronger in smell and flavour than the carefully bred livestock meat we are used to. Think of how much stronger in flavour duck is to chicken. The same idea can be applied to the difference between roo meat and cows. It's a strange, almost rich, metallic flavour that's hard to describe.

  • Donaldhump on 16/02/2020 - 09:39
    +7

    whold you the fat is bad , eat fat without sugar and you will be ok

    • tryagain on 16/02/2020 - 10:48
      +11

      I'd rather moderate my fat and sugar content than exclude one to then increase the other.
      I know someone who works in a eating disorder clinic, they said just about everyone they see started out with "I quit sugar"

    • Scamwatcher on 16/02/2020 - 19:25
      +5

      This is totally incorrect. Saturated fats and trans fats are bad for your health.
      Additionally, fats are very energy dense and can contribute to obesity/weight gain if excessive amounts of fats are eaten.
      Also there is no evidence that sugar + fat is worse than an excessive amount of either on their own.
      - Aim to limit added sugar (table sugar or soft drinks) but sugar that is naturally occurring in fruit or dairy is fine.
      - Aim for monounsaturated (nuts, avocado and extra virgin olive oil) and polyunsaturated fats (oily fish)
      - Limit saturated and trans fats (butter, lard and coconut oil/cream)

      Source: I am a dietitian

      • Austrian Oak on 16/02/2020 - 20:21
        +6

        Also there is no evidence that sugar + fat is worse than an excessive amount of either on their own.

        Well that's not entirely true.

        There was a study done with rats which where they fed them either 100% cream, or 100% sugar and they could eat as much as they like.
        Guess what the rats did not become obese. However when combined in the perfect ratio of 50/50% the rats would constantly overeat and become obese.

        It's the combination of sugar+fat that even humans crave and the food industry exploits this.

        • Ratmuffin on 16/02/2020 - 20:56
          +1

          Interesting - got the source for that one?

        • Scamwatcher on 16/02/2020 - 21:37
          -6

          Cool story, however rats do not equal humans.
          Come back when you find a study or a randomised controlled trial on humans that suggests that fat + sugars is worse than either on their own.

          • Austrian Oak on 16/02/2020 - 23:06
            +14

            @Scamwatcher: Come back when you find a study or a randomised controlled trial on humans that suggests that fat + sugars is worse than either on their own.

            Ok ill bite.

            Visceral adiposity and metabolic syndrome after very high–fat and
            low-fat isocaloric diets: a randomized controlled trial1,2
            Vivian L Veum,3,4,6,8 Johnny Laupsa-Borge,3,6–8 Øyvin Eng,6 Espen Rostrup,7 Terje H Larsen,7 Jan Erik Nordrehaug,3
            Ottar K Nygard,3,4,7 Jørn V Sagen,3,4,6 Oddrun A Gudbrandsen,5 Simon N Dankel,3,4,6* and Gunnar Mellgren3,4,6*

            "The very high intake of total and saturated fat did not increase the calculated risk of cardiovascular diseases," says professor and cardiologist Ottar Nygård who contributed to the study.

            "Participants on the very-high-fat diet also had substantial improvements in several important cardiometabolic risk factors, such as ectopic fat storage, blood pressure, blood lipids (triglycerides), insulin and blood sugar."

            Fat storage depends on dietary habits that favor excess energy intake relative to expenditure, largely from
            highly palatable foods that typically combine processed carbohydrates and fats (7).

            Conclusions: Consuming energy primarily as carbohydrate or fat
            for 3 mo did not differentially influence visceral fat and metabolic
            syndrome in a low-processed, lower-glycemic dietary context. Our
            data do not support the idea that dietary fat per se promotes ectopic
            adiposity and cardiometabolic syndrome in humans.

            But the alleged health risks of eating good-quality fats have been greatly exaggerated. It may be more important for public health to encourage reductions in processed flour-based products, highly processed fats and foods with added sugar,

            So much for saturated fat being the problem.

        • nomoneynoproblems on 16/02/2020 - 21:40
          +1

          Funny enough the same folk that harp on about studies also conveniently forget it's about kcals in and kcals out.

          • D C on 16/02/2020 - 22:46
            -4

            @nomoneynoproblems:

            it's about kcals in and kcals out.

            AKA the physics diet.

            It's like low-carb vs low-fat diets, after 12 months you wind up in the same place: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-…

            Low-carb (high fat, Atkins etc) loses weight quickest at first, but eventually it doesn't matter.

            Keep your cake-hole closed.

            • ChickenTalon on 16/02/2020 - 22:58
              +1

              @D C: Did you actually read that article? Go and have an actual read of it. It specifically says that low-carb is superior. Then go look at all the RCTs, one or two show no difference and a whole lot show LC as superior, esp when you look at other health markers.

              From your article:

              It Is Time to Retire The Fad

              Keep in mind that all of these studies are randomized controlled trials, the gold standard of science. All are published in respected, peer-reviewed medical journals.

              These studies are scientific evidence, as good as it gets, that low-carb is much more effective than the low-fat diet that is still being recommended all over the world.

              It is time to retire the low-fat fad!

              • D C on 16/02/2020 - 23:46
                -3

                @ChickenTalon:

                Did you actually read that article?

                Yes I did.

                Did you check out the timelines on the graphs? All the "Low carb is great!" ones end at 6 months or less. The ones that end at 12 months are "Eh, about the same".

                As I said:

                Low-carb (high fat, Atkins etc) loses weight quickest at first, but eventually it doesn't matter.

                How to lie with statistics. Dude even says at the end "Whatever, anything works" and immediately follows it with "Low carb wins!".

                Just keep that cake hole shut, physics rules.

                • ChickenTalon on 16/02/2020 - 23:58
                  +2

                  @D C: Agree. Whatever works for people, but the LC groups showed far superior outcomes in important biomarkers for heart disease and diabetes.

                  And I don’t put cake in my hole, I’ve been VLCKD for over two years after trying and failing at low-fat my whole life.

                  • D C on 17/02/2020 - 00:39
                    +4

                    @ChickenTalon:

                    but the LC groups showed far superior outcomes in important biomarkers

                    Over short periods. After 12 months - eh.

                    Low carb shows improvements faster (which is fine). I'd say eat less crap and do a bit of exercise works just fine as well, and doesn't require sticking to a diet.

                    • subywagon on 18/02/2020 - 10:32
                      +2

                      @D C:

                      I'd say eat less crap and do a bit of exercise works just fine

                      I've found this to be completely true for myself over 10 years since I started lifting weights.

                      I try to eat as cleanly as possible for my health, and be mindful of my portion sizes (calories). If I eat some junk food I'll cut down on what I eat for the rest of the day. Doing this I have found that I can easily fluctuate my weight either way depending on what I'm aiming for. I love my carbs, I try to avoid processed food but still enjoy various junk food once or twice a week and the occasional Chinese buffet.

                      I think it just comes down to self control and discipline.

        • Milk tea on 16/02/2020 - 22:19
          +2

          Did you find this off a news article?

        • cameldownunder on 17/02/2020 - 15:47
          +3

          I saw that piece of televison, and it's the perfect ratio of 50%/50% that cheats our brain: Glazed Doughnut, Cup Cakes with icing, ….
          You statement has my approval, as I checked this statement against my behaviour: Same as the rats.

      • r3volt on 16/02/2020 - 20:29
        +7

        If youre a dietitian then that explains the health issues society has.

        • Scamwatcher on 16/02/2020 - 21:53
          +9

          You want me to explain/ solve the obesity and health problems of society?

          Alright, but your're getting dot points because I can't be (profanity) typing an essay on a Sunday night.
          - Foods that were once considered luxurys are now cheap (think red meat - fatty mince can be easily bought for a few $$ per kg)
          - People are increasingly going for convenience over home cooked meal (more takeaway)
          - People are becoming more sedentary - this includes jobs (most likely due to increased cheap automation or access to technology) the more time you spend sitting increases your risk of chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
          - Lack of education regarding healthy eating in schools - all the attention in health education goes to drugs and alcohol and safe sex
          - Lack of infrastructure - city's and towns spend more money on maintaining roads for cars and less money goes to walkways and bike lanes - its hard to get active if you have nowhere to do it
          - 90% of Australian adults don't eat their goddamn vegetables - a diet high in vegetables has shown to decrease a whole range of chronic diseases, and it's cheap as hell, yet nobody does it
          - Socioeconomic status, poor people often have poorer health outcomes due to the fact that:
          1) Healthy eating can be expensive
          2) Poorer people often aren't as well educated and also more time poor - increasing the odds they will just eat fast food
          3) Poor people are more likely to live in a 'food desert' which is an urban area in which it is difficult to buy affordable or good-quality fresh food

          In short, people are getting more sedentary, lazier, and eating more than they need.
          What can you do?
          -Go for a run/walk everyday (Aim for 30 mins)
          -Eat your vegetables (5 serves per day)
          -Have red meat once a week (no more than 350g - the other days eat chicken or fish or plant based protein)
          -Have half a plate of veggies at every meal

          • ChickenTalon on 16/02/2020 - 22:24
            +6

            @Scamwatcher: Half the dietitians themselves are overweight, probably only slightly less than the general population. Can’t go and tell me it’s a lack of education.

            Go have a look around at the next DAA conference. Half of them are fat, quite a few are obese. The previous DAA CEO was huge.

            • Scamwatcher on 17/02/2020 - 12:02
              +7

              @RefusdClassification: If vegetables taste foul every time you eat them, you can't cook very well.

            • virhlpool on 18/02/2020 - 13:03
              +1

              @RefusdClassification: If your veggies taste foul, you're definitely buying them from a wrong place and probably at the wrong time as well (after they go stale).

          • Speckled Jim on 17/02/2020 - 09:08
            +2

            @Scamwatcher: Generally sound advice, however I suspect the late hour affected this:

            vegetables … and it's cheap as hell, yet nobody does it

            Contradicts

            1) Healthy eating can be expensive

            It can't be both, unless you meant remote areas where transportation jacks the prices up. But then, growing veg can be cheap too.

            • Scamwatcher on 17/02/2020 - 12:06
              +5

              @Speckled Jim: Frozen veggies are cheap - and also the modern freezing processes retain all the nutrients.
              However fresh fruit and veg and other healthy foods can be expensive, but it's still not as expensive as buying fast food - people opt for convenience over health.

              • virhlpool on 18/02/2020 - 13:04
                +1

                @Scamwatcher: If you want variety in frozen veggies, head to Indian grocery stores.

            • crentist on 17/02/2020 - 16:50
              +1

              @Speckled Jim: That's if you cook everything yourself. Or grow it, as you suggest.
              But once you're outside and trying to get something to eat from a takeout or restaurant, cheap + healthy is rare.

              And while that might seem obvious enough not to even mention, it isn't the case in other parts of the world. I've been working in Japan for a bit and trying to eat a little bit healthy after some weight loss, and found that it's possible on an almost 100% takeout/7-11 diet that can be kept under $5 a meal.

              You can also eat incredibly unhealthy too, but there is some choice.

          • elli0t on 17/02/2020 - 11:27
            +3

            @Scamwatcher: Red meat once a week lol.. yeah nah. People seem to be doing well on carnivore diets

            • ChickenTalon on 17/02/2020 - 11:55
              +1

              @elli0t: Dietitian Social Media Training 101: Tell a bunch of fit healthy looking carnivores they're doing it wrong.

              You simply do not find fat/unhealthy carnivores. I tried carnivore for a month and just finished actually. Must say, it felt pretty good, even though dietitians would have you believe you'd die from a lack of fibre. Thinking of continuing and going stricter to cut out dairy to see how that feels.

              Re: fibre, you haven't lived until you've done a fibre free turd. It's liberating.

            • Scamwatcher on 17/02/2020 - 12:13
              -1

              @elli0t: Yeah I'm sure their bowel cancer risk has gone way up too.
              The Cancer Council don't just make up the recommendation of 350g of red meat just for fun - they actually do research and determine safe levels.
              But you're an adult - you can smoke, drink and eat what you like.
              Also I love all the comments from clearly insecure men who think they need to eat red meat or their man-card will be revoked.
              :)

              • ChickenTalon on 17/02/2020 - 13:44
                +2

                @Scamwatcher: There we go, red meat causes cancer. Absolutely laughable when you consider the evidence.

                The Cancer Council, on advice from the WHO, made it up based on a mountain of extremely piss-poor epidemiology and drawing conclusions that simply aren't there. EPIDEMIOLOGY ≠ SCIENCE. (At best it's closer to market research and cannot prove causation.) The conclusions associating red or processed meats with colon cancer may at best warrant further research. Don't blame meat for what the chips, coke and bread might have done.

                Aside from the nitrates occurring in microscopic levels in some processed meats there is absolutely no proven pathway for meat to be causing colon cancer. Even then, it's not a fully proven pathway. I myself err on the side of caution with processed meats, eating virtually none of them, but there is absolutely no evidence to support intervention or the cancer council advice.

              • elli0t on 17/02/2020 - 18:09
                +4

                @Scamwatcher: clearly insecure? wtf are you on about. Red meat is super tasty and healthy, no reason to limit or exclude it.

                Just because you're a dietitian, it doesn't mean you actually understand human physiology.
                You just learn to parrot false dietary/medical dogma that is spread and funded by corporate interests (mostly pharmaceutical, grain & sugar industries).

                • tryagain on 17/02/2020 - 20:30
                  +5

                  @elli0t: Not claiming to know a lot about the carnivore diet, but a lot of the comments here seem very similar to antivaxers ie the proported experts don't know what they are talking about, its a conspiracy of big pharma/sugar and here look, I have a YouTube video as proof.

                  • buckster on 18/02/2020 - 07:15
                    +1

                    @tryagain: No stronger evidence in life than a YouTube video. The only thing stronger is a brother/sister-in-law's hairdresser's auntie's experience

                    • elli0t on 18/02/2020 - 15:06

                      @buckster: Don't forget that if you read it on the internet it must be true..

                  • Scamwatcher on 18/02/2020 - 13:18
                    -1

                    @tryagain: It's the same logic, yes.

                  • elli0t on 18/02/2020 - 15:03
                    +2

                    @tryagain: The results of the diet speak for themselves. And yes it's a lot of anecdotal evidence but that doesn't mean it should be disregarded.

                    Did you even watch the video? Why don't you read the studies he references and fact check his statements yourself before dismissing it merely because of the fact that it's a video on YouTube..

                    • tryagain on 18/02/2020 - 18:13
                      +2

                      @elli0t: Not disputing the carnivore diet as a means of weight loss, although I often find it interesting that someone will go from unregulated eating crap and doing nothing to then eating less and far healthier as well as exercising, and then chalk the weightloss up to low-carbs/paleo/shakes/insert-other-fad-diet-here as opposed to the caloric deficit from their changed habits.

                      Did you even watch the video? Why don't you read the studies he references and fact check his statements yourself before dismissing it merely because of the fact that it's a video on YouTube.

                      I watched the majority of it, but to be honest, I don't really have the time or inclination to go down the rabbit hole of checking his claims, I tend to go with the consensus of the experts in any field say, it's not foolproof, but will see you on the right side of the debate on the vast majority of times. The speaker is an MD as opposed to a PhD in nutrition/dietetics, so although he knows far more on the subject than I do, he really wouldn't be considered an expert on the subject. The below quote is in relation to climate science, but I think the general idea relates and sums up my view.

                      As a rule, I will not debate climate science with anyone. I'm not qualified; and more than likely either are you.

                      Generally, to become a Professor in Climate Science you first have to complete a 4 year Bachelor of Science at University, often followed by a Masters (1 to 2 years) then a Doctorate (4 to 8 years) which will focus intensely on a specific area of expertise, then usually a Post-Doctorate (another 4 to 8 years), again focussing intensely on one element of the science they want to be an expert on.

                      The fact that some people feel qualified to challenge the findings of these people because they've been "doing a lot of research" (watching YouTube and reading blogs) is a text book example of the Dunning Kruger Effect in action.

                      We as a society have for centuries developed a means of selecting our brightest young minds and leading them into a vocation of study and academia so that they may advance our civilisation. These minds are speaking in unison and without stuttering, yet we now suddenly seek to refute their findings out of sheer arrogance and inconvenience.

                      So if you don't have so much as a Science Undergraduate Degree, not only do you definitely not understand climate science, you also don't understand how complex climate science is… which ironically is why you think you understand it.

                      So again, I will not debate climate science with you. I'm not qualified to dissect the graph you googled, I can't explain the anomaly in the YouTube video you found, and to be brutally honest I don't even really understand how CO2 is causing our planet to warm… but I know literally every respected scientific body and academic institution in the World does.

                      I find it overwhelmingly more likely that they are right and you are wrong than vice versa… but what would they know… You found a graph on the internet.

                      A link to the graph he included

                  • ozhunter on 18/02/2020 - 16:28
                    +1

                    @tryagain: Everyone else's studies are irrelevant?

                    We should just always trust big pharma no questions asked? Only they know what best for us and always have our health as their only top priority?

                    If a doctor or dietitian that disagrees with big pharma, which one should I believe?

                    • tryagain on 18/02/2020 - 18:19

                      @ozhunter: Definitely not, see above for a more detailed response including for your last question.

                      • ozhunter on 19/02/2020 - 01:16

                        @tryagain:

                        Definitely not

                        Yet, your linked reply appears to say the opposite.

                        • tryagain on 19/02/2020 - 09:38

                          @ozhunter: Studies that are to do with a certain topic are always relevant to that topic, that doesn't necessarily make them 100% correct though. They then form the greater body of work to do with that topic, from the bigger body of work, more robust conclusions can be formed.
                          Taking only a small select portion of the whole body of work (generally confirmation bias involved) might be convincing to the average person but is likely misleading.

                          • ChickenTalon on 19/02/2020 - 16:43
                            +3

                            @tryagain: The problem with nutrition is that the large "body of work" is based almost entirely on epidemiology. It's just so hard to do much else when looking at the impact of diet on people. Epidemiology is hugely flawed as a basis for determining guidelines and simply can never prove anything causes good health or bad health. When more epidemiology comes out showing more and more association (not causation), people mistakenly believe that it starts to show cause, which is not correct. I myself have university qualifications in statistics & epidemiology, and I'm well aware of just how poor they are.

                            For a great read of why epidemiology is soo flawed have a look at Peter Attia's explination, he does a much better job of explaining it than I can.

                            Don't confuse nutrition skepticism with vax denial. There are very robust studies, not epidemiology, proving the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

                            • tryagain on 20/02/2020 - 11:01
                              +2

                              @ChickenTalon: Thanks for the link, If I had a dollar for every time I have thought "correlation does not equal causation" when hearing about a study, I might not be on Ozbargain, but the article goes into more depth nicely.

                              I am by no means anti-scepticism, I think it is imperative to avoid echo chambers, I do however take little notice of people who seem to be suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect. Whilst you are right to point out the big difference between nutrition scepticism with vax denial (I was only pointing out the similarities in rationale of the argument here, not the strength of the basis of the argument.) the reality is the broad consensus of the experts in the nutrition/dietetics field, is that a balanced diet is best. This does not guarantee they are right about it, or anything else (I have always been sceptical about processed meat being classified as a Class 1 carcinogen) but the less reliant a conclusion is on a handful of studies as opposed to a broad body of work, the more likely it is to be correct, even if the method of studies leaves a bit to be desired.

                              My personal view is that for most diet-related issues, the far bigger underlying issue is an unhealthy relationship with food, the whole, do eat this, don't eat that schtick is just treating the symptoms. This is why most diet participants, for all diet types, fare so badly when viewed over a 2-5 year timeframe.

                              • ChickenTalon on 20/02/2020 - 18:50

                                @tryagain:

                                My personal view is that for most diet-related issues, the far bigger underlying issue is an unhealthy relationship with food, the whole, do eat this, don't eat that schtick is just treating the symptoms.

                                This is exactly why I found success with low carb. For the first time in my life I finally had control over what and how much I ate. I don’t think there is one diet for everyone, but I know that the advice of moderation and counting calories simply doesn’t work. People generally know how to eat and what’s healthy, but are powerless to control themselves.

                                This is the reason why so many dietitians with all their training and knowledge are still overweight. Seriously, go to any DAA conference and you’ll see 50% of them are overweight. If you were to look at the >40yrs the percentage would be even higher.

                                Something is seriously wrong.

                                • tryagain on 21/02/2020 - 10:20
                                  +1

                                  @ChickenTalon:

                                  I don’t think there is one diet for everyone

                                  Totally agree, for someone losing weight, the diet you can stick too best is likely the best for you.

                                  I know that the advice of moderation and counting calories simply doesn’t work.

                                  If you can stick to it, it does work, it is what the vast majority of people who stay in the healthy weight range do, they eat enough to provide fuel, but no so much that they store excess fat, it's actually pretty simple, but for many not so easy.

                                  People generally know how to eat and what’s healthy, but are powerless to control themselves.

                                  I wouldn't say powerless but lack the required self-control, A low carb diet still requires a lot of self-control as well, it probably just fits some peoples weaknesses better. The results of the restrictive methods of Bariatric surgery provide an interesting comparison, people who undergo surgery usually have significant weight loss results and much better long term outcomes than normal dieting, this is usually achieved just by consuming less as opposed to strictly following regimes about what you can and can't eat.

                                  This is the reason why so many dietitians with all their training and knowledge are still overweight. Seriously, go to any DAA conference and you’ll see 50% of them are overweight. If you were to look at the >40yrs the percentage would be even higher.

                                  I don't think knowledge has a lot to do with it, a lack of self-control stemming from an unhealthy relationship with food seems to be the main factor to me (a sedentary lifestyle is the other side of the coin.). Diets help with the self-control issue in the short term but over the 2-5 year range, they pretty much well all have extremely high failure rates.

                                  Something is seriously wrong.

                                  Yep, Obesity is an epidemic, but I don't think it is correct to say consuming the right amount of calories is a failure because some people aren't doing it, yet it works for those that do.

                • RandomFox on 18/02/2020 - 17:33
                  -2

                  @elli0t: "You just learn to parrot false dietary/medical dogma that is spread and funded by corporate interests (mostly pharmaceutical, grain & sugar industries)." Yet here you are being brain washed by the meat industry and their paid scientists that will make any research "true" lol.

                  • 7ekn00 on 18/02/2020 - 22:50

                    @RandomFox: Haha, just like Vegans and Monsanto shill parrots ;)

              • RandomFox on 18/02/2020 - 17:30
                -1

                @Scamwatcher: I don't think being paid off by the meat industry is "research and determine safe levels." otherwise their "recommendation" would be very different.

              • ozbjunkie on 18/02/2020 - 20:47
                +2

                @Scamwatcher: Love the sexism. Really adds to your air of professionalism. Don't ever change.

      • bobkin on 16/02/2020 - 20:45
        +6

        I appreciate your evidence-based input into the discussion. Unfortunately for many people:
        - anecdote trumps evidence
        - extrapolations from basic science or animal research are thought to equate to human evidence, when this is infrequently the case
        - googling a topic gives the illusion of in-depth knowledge
        - motivated reasoning predominates (i.e. coming to a conclusion first then looking for supportive evidence, rather than letting evidence inform conclusions)

      • ChickenTalon on 16/02/2020 - 22:42
        +6

        Ahh yes. “Limit butter”

        That old dietitian chestnut about avoiding full fat dairy and butter.

        !EVIDENCE ALERT!

        Fresh Evidence, or rather a lack of evidence…

        https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1903547

        Yes it’s epidemiology (usually nonsense) but in this case it is a pretty damning finding, considering the health messages would likely have influenced the low-fat cohorts with healthy person bias.

        OUCH

      • samfisher5986 on 17/02/2020 - 18:43

        Your lack of understanding is concerning. I'm struggling to believe you are a dietitian, probably a nutritionist with an online certificate.

        1. Natural transfats are completely fine and are found in meat and dairy. The bad transfat is the artificial transfat.

        2. You won't find anyone who only eats fat and gets fat/obese, its simply way too difficult without the aid of sugar or carbs. You would have to eat to the point that you feel sick every day and even then…you probably won't get fat.

        3. There is a long list of evidence that sugar is bad for you, and plenty of evidence that fat is good for you, and also tastes good. Simple logic says that sugar + nice taste = more sugar eaten.

        4. You can buy candy made from 100% natural sugars (fruit), as well as many other "sugar" methods from fruit. These will make you fat and unhealthy the same way.

        The only reason fruit is better then cane sugar outside things like vitamins is that fruit is full of fibre and water to make you feel fuller, so you eat less, cane sugar does not have either therefore you can eat a lot more.

        At the end of the day, natural sugar and cane sugar has the same effect of making you fat and eventually unhealthy if you consume it in the same way.

        There is no evidence that butter and other forms of natural fat are bad for you. There are plenty of sources that show that margarine and other artificial sources are bad for you.

        • Scamwatcher on 18/02/2020 - 13:17
          -4

          Wow you're struggling to believe something? shocker
          I get the feeling you struggle with most things big boy.
          Also all your other points are completely incorrect, feel free to link some actual studies to back up your stupid comments.
          Have fun out there, don't hurt yourself.

          • ozbjunkie on 18/02/2020 - 20:51

            @Scamwatcher: Why do you argue like a teenager?

            • samfisher5986 on 19/02/2020 - 13:49

              @ozbjunkie: Because he is. He doesn't have a degree, he has a online certificate for a nutritonalist.

              No real dietitian would sign up to an account and set their username as dietitian.

              • ozbjunkie on 20/02/2020 - 20:43
                +1

                @samfisher5986: I find this explanation likely.

                But from the sexism and "big boy" comments I'd guess female with a first year uni subject under her belt.

      • 7ekn00 on 18/02/2020 - 22:48

        Also there is no evidence that sugar + fat is worse than an excessive amount of either on their own.

        Incorrect, there is a well established and taught biological mechanism called "The Randle Cycle" for energy production - it runs most efficiently (ie less oxidative stress) when using only one substrate (glucose or fatty acids delivered in the form of triglyceride) … But I am sure you knew that as it's taught in first year Biology ;)

        Saturated fats

        LOL, again, incorrect! At least you are sticking to the paid opinions of Kellogs and Coke that currently sponsor the Dietitians Association of Australia :P

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTe-eitOJGA

      • FrozenFred on 19/02/2020 - 00:23

        User name checks out

  • Hardlyworkin on 16/02/2020 - 09:43
    +5

    I buy the pre made burgers from colesworth. I like the taste, price is ok and I think it to be one of the more ethical/environmental sources of meat. I can't see myself ever going meat free though can change my habits for the better.

  • askme69 on 16/02/2020 - 09:51
    +4

    Fat is flavour.

    Kangaroo has none.

    It is pretty bad in my opinion, one try was enough.

    • lunchbox99 on 16/02/2020 - 11:23
      +9

      Not just flavour - very lean meat can be very tough after cooking.

      • askme69 on 16/02/2020 - 11:27

        That as well. It had the taste ams texture of cardboard.

        Lucky it was 70% off.

      • Tech5 on 16/02/2020 - 12:30
        +2

        I found a secret with it. Kangaroo meat in the frying pan always ends up tough and shit. Put it on a grill and it maintains a juicy, tender feel

        • myusername on 16/02/2020 - 13:38
          +1

          seal it in the pan and then finish in the oven - similar to braising

      • gromit on 17/02/2020 - 14:49
        +4

        only if you overcook it. Kangaroo is just fine if properly cooked (i.e. nothing above medium rare).

    • BargainHunter55 on 16/02/2020 - 22:50

      Once had kangaroo meat with this lovely sauce at a restaurant, it was very tender and soft.

      I don't know what they did to it but it left a good impression on me.

      Maybe season it up with some herbs and give it a good marinade and it may come out a lot nicer? Who knows.

  • Halo375 on 16/02/2020 - 10:01
    +5

    Kangaroo can be delicious but its a lot harder to cook and flavour than beef.

    • toristo on 16/02/2020 - 12:18
      +3

      If you like medium well or well done steak, Kangaroo is not for you.

      Rare/Medium rare still has enough moisture, but past this it's tough. As tshow says above - season it, then do it again. Marinades are also good too.

      • dcep on 16/02/2020 - 13:28

        is it healthy to eat rare//medium rare meat ?

        • brendanm on 16/02/2020 - 15:29
          +2

          Why wouldn't it be?

          • Logical on 17/02/2020 - 00:16
            -4

            @brendanm: Maggots and their eggs

          • nfr on 17/02/2020 - 14:15

            @brendanm: Depends on the cooking temperature. You generally want 60 or 70 degrees Celsius for at least a minute or 2 to be safe.

            • brendanm on 17/02/2020 - 15:04

              @nfr: For chicken, yes, beef or kangaroo, no.

              • nfr on 17/02/2020 - 15:45

                @brendanm: Why not?

                • brendanm on 17/02/2020 - 16:34
                  +1

                  @nfr: It will then be well done, and therefore horrible.

                • anzacpaul on 22/02/2020 - 21:56

                  @nfr: Because chicken has Salmonella.

      • WT on 17/02/2020 - 11:45

        if you like well done there is the option to use a touch of baking soda/powder to tenderize. Google and have a play, too much can affect flavor and texture too much

  • TEER3X on 16/02/2020 - 10:03
    +3

    Since it's low in fat, what about making some jerky out of it?

  • qwerty on 16/02/2020 - 10:21
    -2

    How much can 1 cow feed vs 1 roo

  • Ak850 on 16/02/2020 - 10:22
    +1

    I've bought kangaroo for the environmental reasons you mention. I like it in bolognaise but my wife finds it too gamey (she doesn't like lamb or goat either). We just made bolognaise with turkey which I think is easier on the environment than beef (but not sure) and that was more to her liking.

    • elgrande on 16/02/2020 - 16:05

      Hows it better for the environment?

      • D C on 16/02/2020 - 16:39
        +10

        Fart less, less damage to the ground.

        https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/05/kangaroo-far…

        The rest is pretty common knowledge, easily Googled.

        Kangaroo require less water, after all they've adapted to the environment.

        Kangaroos are soft pawed, cows have hard hooves so tend to churn the ground up. Cows can over-graze grass if poorly managed, restricting the root system or damaging it. During drought kangaroos will do this too, but then you've bigger problems.

        Cows are fine in places with lots of rain & grass, but that's not most of Australia.

      • [Deactivated] on 16/02/2020 - 17:04
        +3

        More sustainable and humane too

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 16/02/2020 - 11:04

    Love skippy.

    A little bit trickier to cook. Rare is best.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join