Comments on: How Much Actual Hamburger Is in Your Big Mac? Frighteningly Little

By: smerk

smerk — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:13:36 +0000

Now I’m looking forward to similar analysis of chicken nuggets.

By: andrew

andrew — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:05:30 +0000

I agree… what are the figures of a healthy burger?

By: Dr. Kate

Dr. Kate — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:50:13 +0000

This seems a little silly to me. How are they defining “meat”? Water is part of meat. You can’t have a muscle cell without water. It sounds like they’re saying the equivalent of “Only about 40-50% of your body is real human, because the rest is just water!”

The thing they would really need to measure is ADDED water (or other stuff). As Dennis points out, without a control, this information is pretty useless. And as demonstrator says, most meat is at least 50% water anyway, so it doesn’t surprise me that a hamburger would be 50% or more water!

By: Helen

Helen — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:52:58 +0000

I heard mealworms–that “made with 100% pure beef” meant that the company that supplied it was named ‘100% Pure’. I was sceptical then, but I have to admit: I was at least expecting a dash of rodent.

By: Alice

Alice — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:29:12 +0000

That’s not nearly as bad as I was expecting – I read in a novel somewhere about gym shoes and cats being included in the content of some!

By: demonstrator

demonstrator — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:19:18 +0000

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Factsheets/Water_in_Meats/index.asp

High water content in meat is actually a norm. Not to say anyone should not be worried about what is added in these processed meats, but something to consider.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:18:56 +0000

Um, where’s the control? They should’ve included some prime beef that was prepared with extra care for comparison.