So, chitterlings. AKA Chitlins. Here in Argentina, they're called (a bit too similarly), "chinchulin". They are animal intestines.
According to the paleo worldview, these should be quite healthy: all paleo literature advocates "animal organs" in general as particularly paleo and particularly rich sources of healthy vitamins/nutrients/minerals/etc.
I'm looking for some information about the health (paleo-wise) of animal intestines in particular. I've been unsuccessful at finding anything detail anything other than < http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/pork-products/2185/2 >, which has some good data but doesn't speak to our paleo view of food and health. The numbers here also make it sound more negative than positive (not particularly nutritious except for selenium).
I also heard, somewhere, that Chitterlings - as they're bought in butcher shops - are bleached and cleaned up - and that this process removes much of the nutritious value anyway. Does anyone know if this is true?
And how did our grok cavemen ancestors eat intestines (if at all)? The intestines were probably full of crap (quite literally!) and the diseases that modern technology presumably cleans out (while simultaneously removing some of the nutrients too/see the aforementioned point) - but the paleo cavemen didn't have access to a real ability to clean them, I imagine. Did they just avoid them? Did they eat them whole but their bodies were accustomed to the components of the animal intestines? Or...?
Any thoughts? Thanks!
asked byMorgan (1670)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on June 16, 2010
at 12:55 AM
Look up the USDA Nutritional Database on Google. Type in "chitterlings" in the first search box, select Pork Products in the second. Then, for a relatively realistic assessment of what you'd get at the table nutritionally speaking, select "cooked simmered" and "3 oz" (ounces). That will bring up the nutritional values on simmered chitterlings. I think you'll find there's some nutritional value there. Unless you're a disciple of Loren Cordain's works, you'll find it's a decent source of saturated fat if nothing else.
Somebody over on Mark's Daily Apple was getting preachy about African-Americans having as much heart disease as they do because of their habit of eating lots of pork. I said something like, "Oh? So why don't Europeans have those disease rates? They love pork." I don't know that I would ever be brave enough to eat hog intestines by themselves--but I'll happily eat sausage and Cajun boudin made with them, and have, and I don't worry a bit about it. (OK, I worry a bit about the rice in the boudin. But if you must eat grain, rice is one of the safer grains to eat.)
on July 16, 2010
at 04:15 PM
If you're looking for a salty crunch snack - they're better than potato chips. :-)
Our dogs eat raw. They eagerly devour the guts before having to work on the meat and bones. But then again we're not exactly dogs.
on July 02, 2010
at 02:02 PM
Reinactment wise, I don't think it melds with paleo. Carnivores will usually leave behind the guts, yes? Maybe it says something that the stomach and intestines have to be so thoroughly cleaned (and bleached!) before we're interested in eating them. Nutritionally and economically, there are much better meat and offal options out there.
on June 18, 2010
at 07:14 AM
Okinawan diet is based on pork and lard, the okinawans have little heart disease and great longevity. The intestines they serve at the thousands of Mexican restaurants in so cal doesn't seem to be bleached or cleaned. It took me a while to get used to eating tripas still full of half-digested food. I think of them as nothing more than a vehicle for getting massive amounts of lard into my gullet. That's all the reason I need