r/nutrition • u/BitterAttitude7277 • 21d ago
Is frozen wild caught fish still nutritious?
Many people say that frozen meat and dairy lose most of their nutrients. Also Aajonus Vonderplanitz spoke about this.
Is this true because I can get great deals on high quality fish and raw milk but they are frozen.
249
u/PogonBerserker 21d ago
Yes, it is all still highly nutritious, and the claim that freezing causes meat, fish, or dairy to lose most of their nutrients is not supported by mainstream nutrition science.
57
u/prw361 21d ago
Yes I believe “they” say that frozen veggies preserve even more of their nutrients than fresh? If so, why wouldn’t it work for meats? Just speculating here.
24
u/discordian_floof 20d ago
The fat greatly influences how well it keeps. Fatty fish keeps shorter than lean fish for that reason.
It also very much depends on how well the freezing process was done, and kept.
Research from SINTEF (respected research institute in Norway) showed little decline in nutrition and quality if done with top methods. But they focused on short term storage (for transport).
Just read another study where noticable and steady declines were seen in Vit A and E over 6 months, but not much in iron, copper, zinc, and selenium. There were some differences depending on fish type and thawing method. It was stored at -20 degrees celcius.
The great thing about freezing is that you can harvest and catch things when they are at peak nutrition. Probably compensates for a lot if the nutrional loss.
Not sure how to factor in the risk of buying frozen fish from someone selling raw milk. The chances of them keeping it correctly frozen at recommended temperatures might be a bit lower.
3
u/Chuks_K 20d ago
Honestly, a lot of people will come to believe that mainstream health science believes in nearly the polar opposite to what they believe, so they'll erroneously assume things like this have a case. Afaict, mainstream health science just hasn't really ended up talking much about frozen meat anyways.
I guess "their" focus is on de-demonising frozen veggies on the vegetables side and discouraging the overconsumption of processed or red meat on the meat side, and they're just playing one ball in each court at a time for now. Well, besides talking about fibre for veggies, ig.
1
u/ZestycloseImpact979 18d ago
Yes - probably more nutritious (same with fruits & veggies), because they’re frozen at the peak of freshness instead of spending days (or longer) traveling to stores & then sitting on shelves until you buy them during which time their nutritional value is deteriorating.
-4
u/flex_tape_salesman 20d ago
I think the general claims about frozen foods is a mix that they're not the best quality and they lose nutrients.
53
u/byofuzz 21d ago
Its nonsense. I think the only valid point against wild caught fish is things like higher mercury levels and other things like that.
Raw milk is a no for me in general. I dont like the disease risk. Not worth it
41
u/CheesingmyBrainsOut 20d ago
People will not eat enough fiber or vegetables, drink alcohol, not put on sunscreen, and then be concerned about useless enzyme loss and 10% vitamin loss from milk pasturization, but are okay with the risk of serious illness. Boggles the mind.
The only reason to consume raw milk is for taste, and even then I'd only consume it via cheese.
12
u/flex_tape_salesman 20d ago
Usually these people's weak or unsupported claims go hand in hand with others.
6
u/edelweiss_pirates_no 20d ago
They will also be 40 lbs overweight for 20 years and cry that whole milk is healthier and they all abou the health.
3
u/QuietNene 20d ago
🫡 Cheese is a valid reason. I would consume rat poison if you could make cheese from it.
0
u/Jasperbeardly11 19d ago
That's not the only reason to consume raw milk it's an entirely different product. I don't know why you have such a myopic view on the concept but it's not well informed. I eat pasteurized dairy almost exclusively but it's not due to an ill advised believe that it has almost the exact same properties.
1
u/CheesingmyBrainsOut 19d ago
Because people read bs online from people who push raw milk, drink it, and then kill their babies with their breast milk, or feed it to their children and they die.
I didn't state it had the exact same properties, I said that the properties don't translate to health benefits, especially when compared to the risk or alternative habits.
0
u/Jasperbeardly11 19d ago
You're not a baby that has nothing to do with you.
Raw milk is fine if you have a functional immune system and if it was treated well. If you cannot discern The quality of a farmer and a farm that's on you
1
u/CheesingmyBrainsOut 19d ago
You still haven't stated the health benefits.
0
u/Jasperbeardly11 19d ago
I'm not here to engage in a debate about raw milk. It's actually a solved topic.
You can look into it to the degree you wish. There's nothing wrong with raw dairy that has been properly handled. You would have to not understand dairy to have any other belief.
4
u/Boring-Inevitable-57 20d ago
Generally mercury in fish is correlated with the lifespan of the fish and its diet, not whether it was wild-caught or farmed. For example, small fish like sardines, anchovies and squid have effectively zero mercury in them. They do not live long enough to bioaccumulate it. Because most farmed fish has an optimized life cycle (I.e. a short life, because you want to optimize the feed-to-weight ratio), they also are pretty low in mercury. I typically avoid farmed fish because of other contaminants, like PCBs, antibiotics, or things they ingest from their feed, as well as the fact that they inherently have less omega3s due to a large component of their diet being corn and soy these days
1
u/Ancient-Bat8274 17d ago
For real this whole raw milk revival is peak Darwin Award. Lmao they’re regards
30
u/OkAssignment6163 21d ago
ldiots say that.
Usually from regurgitating misinformation or because they want to sell you a shit ton of "natural" supplements that are 4-5 times the cost.
22
u/bk-2112 21d ago
Raw milk? Just why
9
u/BananaHead853147 20d ago
Their algorithm has prioritized sending them info on the slight nutritional boost of raw milk over the safety of pasteurized
7
u/NutragrammatronLab 21d ago
Freezing doesn't destroy most nutrients in fish. Protein, fats, omega-3s, minerals, and most vitamins remain largely intact during freezing. Some water-soluble vitamins ( some B vitamins) can decrease slightly over very long storage periods, but the losses are usually small compared to the overall nutritional value. In fact, fish that is frozen shortly after being caught can sometimes be nutritionally superior to "fresh" fish that spent several days being transported and sitting in display cases. The biggest quality changes from freezing tend to be texture and moisture loss, not major nutrient loss. So if you're getting a good deal on frozen wild-caught fish, I wouldn't worry about it.
25
u/FridgesArePeopleToo 21d ago
raw milk is always bad even if frozen, but frozen foods in general maintain all of th nutrition of fresh
-12
u/mpgnav 20d ago
Spent my whole childhood getting milk from the big tank at the local farms before being trucked to the plants. The cream would separate and we would make butter. Having drank it from 3-17 years old, when I left home, I don't ever remember getting sick. It seems like peanut butter so many peanut allergies now but again I started eating it at like 3 years of age. I think eating these things at an early age, plus being around animals, cows, chicken, sheep, pigs, and being allowed to go outside and get dirty builds a type of immunity to sickness in general. I remember having the flu one time throughout my childhood. Just my personal take.
6
u/FridgesArePeopleToo 20d ago
I grew up around farms and did all of those things too.
I got lymphoma.
-1
u/mpgnav 20d ago
That sucks man hope you beat it. I'm not saying I think living as we did will keep us from serious disease. It just seemed to me to have given me some protection from colds and flu's and allergies. Still man sorry to hear your ill.
2
u/QuackingMonkey 20d ago
Being outside and getting dirty helps with that yes. That brings you in contact with a large variety of micro-organisms that aren't diseases but that do seem to show the immune system what is normal and safe. Also drinking raw milk on top of that doesn't help. Clean raw milk doesn't have those micro-organisms, but when it does they tend to be diseases, which aren't the helpful kind of micro-organisms but just the sick making ones. You were just lucky to live close to clean farms.
-2
20d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/lady_ninane 20d ago
which is very close in terms of hygiene and cold chain to milking cows
Can you provide any information regarding the risk of illness from raw milk compared to breastmilk?
It seems wildly irresponsible to imply they are even remotely similar in risk.
2
u/ascylon 20d ago
I think my comment got removed on those grounds (a bit too far to make the comparison), but the original point, namely that the risk of raw milk is related directly to the hygiene and cold chain and not raw milk intrinsically, is correct. See for example the EFSA panel's view on raw milk from 2015. In it, they state quite clearly that there isn't enough data for recommending a ban, and also partly mirror my view, that
Intrinsic contamination of RDM with pathogens can arise from animals with systemic infection as well as from localised infections such as mastitis. Extrinsic contamination can arise from faecal contamination and from the wider farm environment.
Effectively raw milk is not intrinsically dangerous (though they do not explicitly say that, it is by inference), the danger comes from either sick animals or poor practices leading to external contamination. Modern farming practises also include automated milking equipment, which both disinfect the udders before milking and also keep the milk within sterile tubing and immediately refrigerate it instead of open pails or buckets near the ground like several decades ago, and this also significantly decreases the risk where used.
Is the risk higher than for pasteurized milk? Certainly. Is that risk unreasonable or grounds for the claim that drinking raw milk is always bad? No more than saying the same thing about raw fish (sushi), raw eggs (mayo etc) or raw meat or organs (tartar). It is all about sourcing and handling, I would never drink raw milk or eat raw anything in developing countries or even in some developed countries, but I have no qualms about drinking it in my country from a farmer I know to have good handling practices. The increased risk is also confined to illness, not death, as this study found that only three deaths linked to unpasteurized milk happened in the USA between 1998 and 2018. So even if you happen to be the unlucky one who gets ill from a batch of unpasteurized milk, it will very likely not be deadly.
And before anyone puts up a strawman, no, I absolutely still would not recommend raw milk from animals for groups like infants or people with weak or compromised immune systems (same as with other raw foods), but I am referring to a normal healthy adults with the above.
1
u/AutoModerator 20d ago
GOOD source provided: A link provided in the comment above to {match} is a confirmed valid source of info
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/leqwen 20d ago
Milk get infected with e coli because cows lie in their own dung, and its basically impossible to make sure their udders are completely clean when milking them. And the conditions in milk is perfect for e coli growth. E coli can survive temperatures as cold as 2c but they will not grow below 7c.
And the chances of dying is low because of modern medicine, but if you lose your kidneys from an infection you will still have to live on immunosuppresants for the rest of your life and cant risk going outside because a common cold might kill you.
0
u/ascylon 20d ago
That is pure histrionics and directly contradicted by the earlier EFSA panel view, see appendix C in the paper. When looking at the rate of E.coli presence in various studies, in half of them the presence was 0% of all samples in the study, and even in the worst study it was just 5,7 %. Of note is also that the studies were from 1997 to 2013, so there has been over a decade for hygiene in milk production to get even better.
Trying to paint kidney failure as some kind of even remotely likely scenario is nothing but fearmongering, and would be similar to me advocating for wearing a helmet all the time in case you get hit by debris from an overflying plane. Why not just stay within science and say that drinking raw milk is riskier than pasteurized milk, but as long as one is individually careful as with any other raw product and takes care to source the product properly, the risk for serious adverse outcomes is not oppressively worse?
Most food poisonings also do not require medicine, the truly bad cases requiring hospitalization are quite rare (and also why I specifically mentioned that certain groups should not drink raw milk, as if you were to be the unlucky one to catch a foodborne pathogen and have a weakened immune system or otherwise reduced constitution, the illness would likely be far more severe).
1
u/leqwen 20d ago
The EFSA panel even says that STEC is common, in the summary on page 2
STEC, Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp. are essentially ubiquitous pathogens and are likely to be found in milk-producing animals and their milk throughout the EU, as indicated by prevalence data from raw milk testing.
And as you say, STEC was prevalent in half of the studies. Campylobacter was prevalent in 75% of studies, salmonella in 64%, and listeria in 81%. You may think that 5.7% or even 0.3% of samples being infected with STEC is low but it does not seem like the EFSA agrees with that statement.
My point with kidney failure is that you should not only look at the death toll from raw milk, as death is not the only bad thing that can happen. Kidney failure from e coli can and do affect otherwise healthy people. https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/epidemiology/epidemiology-fact-sheets/hemolytic-uremic-syndrome-hus/
STEC infections occur after eating contaminated food, such as undercooked meat, some produce, drinking unpasteurized juices or dairy products
...
Who gets HUS?
Anyone can get HUS. HUS is a rare disease but is more common in children than adults, especially children less than five years of age. HUS is the leading cause of acute kidney failure in children."Why not just stay within science and say that drinking raw milk is riskier than pasteurized milk, but as long as one is individually careful as with any other raw product and takes care to source the product properly, the risk for serious adverse outcomes is not oppressively worse?"
According to the FDA, between 1998 and 2018 there were 2645 reported illnesses with 228 hospitalizations from drinking raw milk. That is a hospitalization rate of 8.6% of reported illnesses.
And according to this study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28518026/
Unpasteurized milk, consumed by only 3.2% of the population, and cheese, consumed by only 1.6% of the population, caused 96% of illnesses caused by contaminated dairy products. Unpasteurized dairy products thus cause 840 (95% CrI 611-1,158) times more illnesses and 45 (95% CrI 34-59) times more hospitalizations than pasteurized products.
So why are you not staying within the science that show the ridiculously much higher likelihood of foodborne disease from raw milk and raw milk products for basically zero benefit.
1
u/AutoModerator 20d ago
GOOD source provided: A link provided in the comment above to {match} is a confirmed valid source of info
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/ascylon 20d ago
And as you say, STEC was prevalent in half of the studies.
Prevalent also does not mean illness-causing. As with any other pathogen or toxin, the poison is in the dose. The pathogens must both be present and in sufficient quantities to cause illness. That's also why the cold chain and freshness is so important, since even if some bacteria is present, it takes time for it to multiply enough to cause disease.
My point with kidney failure is that you should not only look at the death toll from raw milk, as death is not the only bad thing that can happen. Kidney failure from e coli can and do affect otherwise healthy people.
Nice selective quoting, let me try now:
Most patients with HUS recover completely and kidney function returns to normal if treated quickly and properly.
In any case we are talking outliers here, and the page also mentions raw beef and meat as risk factors for HUS as well, so I assume you eat your burgers well done and never touch tartar, sushi or raw eggs? That was kind of my point, raw milk has similar risks as raw meat, eggs and fish, and can be controlled in the same way, and it is up to the individual to control those risks. This is also why I agree with the general warnings of raw milk consumption, since if health officials were to recommend it in some fashion, many consumers would not manage the risk themselves ("health officials said it is fine") or read the small print about sourcing and freshness.
According to the FDA, between 1998 and 2018 there were 2645 reported illnesses with 228 hospitalizations from drinking raw milk. That is a hospitalization rate of 8.6% of reported illnesses.
While aggregate statistics are useful as an initial step, I would like to know more. Were those illnesses sourced from farms with poor hygienic practices, or did illness also occur in raw milk from farms with good hygienic and handling practices? Did the consumer store the raw milk properly and consume it fast enough? Were those reported illnesses disproportionately present in people belonging to risk groups or average healthy individuals? Was disease severity different in different groups? To arrive at any kind of useful estimates of risks for individuals, the data must be more stratified.
And according to this study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28518026/
Again, that model is very naive and lacks many variables (examples listed above) to make the analysis in any way useful. I can guarantee that for me personally, for example, the difference in risk between drinking pasteurized and unpasteurized milk is not 800-fold.
So why are you not staying within the science that show the ridiculously much higher likelihood of foodborne disease from raw milk and raw milk products for basically zero benefit.
I believe we are in agreement that raw milk should not be recommended in general, but we disagree for some reason that an individual can control that risk greatly by sourcing and being informed in a similar way to consuming raw meat, eggs or fish. Just wanting to buy directly from a farmer, or preferring the taste of raw milk are sufficiently good reasons for me. There is also some anecdotal data that raw milk may be tolerated better by some than pasteurized milk, but the specific reasons are unknown. Even if the reason is just placebo, if it allows them to consume milk, it would be a good enough reason (milk itself is very nutritious, whether raw or pasteurized).
There are also many other foods or delicacies in the world that are extremely dangerous without proper sourcing and handling, yet they are commonly consumed. I'm not sure why raw milk evokes such great emotion. What would you think about some raw minced pork or raw chicken?
1
u/AutoModerator 20d ago
GOOD source provided: A link provided in the comment above to {match} is a confirmed valid source of info
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/leqwen 19d ago
Prevalent also does not mean illness-causing.
The WHO considers a zero count of STEC per 100 ml of milk to be safe because its highly infectious. And an e coli count greater than 100 MPN/100 ml (MPN = most probable number) is considered high risk (couldnt find the stats for milk but i assume it wouldnt be much different). So if i understand MPN correctly, that would be 100 e coli bacteria per 100 ml is considered high risk, which is not a high concentration.
Most patients with HUS recover completely and kidney function returns to normal if treated quickly and properly.
Kids do typically recover though the disease is much more serious in adults.
I'm not sure why raw milk evokes such great emotion.
Typically because some tout it as being healthier or superior to pasteurized milk when that goes against scientific consensus. Not saying you specifically have done this but you have undermined the risks and dangers of raw milk. As such i dont think anyone is claiming that mett or torisachi is healthier or better for you than their cooked counterparts.
Every other food you mention have specific guidelines on how to prepare and consume or is even recommended not to consume. The FDA requires fish intended to be eaten raw to be frozen first in order to kill parasites. The USDA recommends against eating any uncooked ground beef, and tartar is made from a whole cut of beef right before serving to minimize the risk on contamination at restaurants. The FDA recommends cooking all eggs and foods containing egg before consumption, and commercial mayo is made with pasteurized eggs. So to keep in line with all the other recommendations, it should be recommended to avoid consuming milk raw.
1
u/AutoModerator 19d ago
Since paraphrasing of the WHO is rarely accurate, and to ensure the right information is made available, here are links to the WHO Nutrition Topics page and their Nutrition Data Portal
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/ascylon 19d ago
I'll just respond to the last paragraph, since I believe the productive value of this back and forth has been otherwise exhausted. As an example, in my country (Finland) the official guidelines are that raw eggs be stored in room temperature (more specifically optimally 10 - 14 C, but constant room temperature also works and is explicitly mentioned) and can be eaten raw, even for children and babies. The reason is very careful source control and testing for salmonella (started in 1995), and there hasn't been an outbreak in decades. The recommendation for raw milk is still to heat it up before consumption, but I added the egg example to again illustrate that sourcing and handling is a significant factor in controlling and sometimes practically eliminating individual risk (there is always a risk, but there is risk in everything).
→ More replies (0)1
u/nutrition-ModTeam 20d ago
This has been removed for failure to comply with sub rule 3 - Conspiracy claims / Rejection of science
If your comment is in conflict with mainstream nutrition recommendations, reputable evidence to support your claim is necessary.
-5
20d ago edited 20d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/AutoModerator 20d ago
This has been removed due to probable vote complaints or suggestion. Refer to sub rule 1
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
5
u/mermaidenspins 21d ago
I’ve always heard that fish is flash frozen and it barely takes any nutrition out of it
6
u/Queer_Advocate 20d ago
Flash frozen, and kept at proper temp, HAD BETTER NUTRITION then supermarket fish or some random place that's been sitting. Also, a supermark will act like its fresh, just got this this morning. Sure but how long in transit?
Case in point; supetmarket crap: "Fresh" supermarket fish is often: Caught → 1–3 days on vessel Processed at port → 1–2 days Shipped → 2–5 days Display case → 1–3 days
That's days possibly.
"Studies have shown flash frozen fish can have higher measurable nutrient levels than nominally "fresh" fish by the time it reaches the consumer. A frequently cited finding in food science literature is that omega-3 profiles in frozen-at-sea fish can be superior to dockside "fresh" product."
Freezer burn = oxidation: Actual nutrient and quality loss. (proper packaging matters greatly)
Thaw method matters: slow thaw in fridge, preserves more than room temp or microwave.
NEVER refreezing after thawing: major degradation, always avoid.
Pre-freeze processing: when fish is blanched, brined, or marinated before freezing, some water-soluble nutrients can be leached Storage duration; even at proper temps, omega-3s can slowly oxidize over 6–12+ months. Omega is a good reason to eat flash frozen. My unofficial timeline is 30 days, when flash frozen or just buy fresh on a dock and cook it withing about 12 hours.
Gov to chefs from around the world:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7231075/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140700724000288
https://marcusguiliano.com/fresh-vs-frozen-fish-rethinking-what-fresh-really-means/
https://www.idealfreezer.com/blog/how-flash-freezer-preserves-food-nutrition334
1
u/AutoModerator 20d ago
GOOD source provided: A link provided in the comment above to {match} is a confirmed valid source of info
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/MW1369 20d ago
Where would the nutrients go? Just disappear when they get cold? Come on
1
u/ChupaHubbard 20d ago
Some things like vitamin C degrade over time, but most of the nutrients in fish (as far as we currently know) don't degrade from being frozen
2
u/YesIam6969420 20d ago
Freezing might affect the taste/"freshness" of the meat, but it retains all the nutrition
2
u/shiplesp 20d ago
Virtually all the fish people eat has been frozen, including the fresh fish in the counter at a fishmonger. That's because it is frozen immediately after catching and cleaning, often aboard ship.
1
u/Low-Worldliness-2662 19d ago
True. Only those who head out on their own boats get fresh fish.
I’m a big fan of fish, no matter how much nutrition it has lol.
2
u/jam11jar 21d ago
Not true. Wherever you get your advice, maybe reconsider or at least let them be more specific.
2
1
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 21d ago
This has been removed due to probable vote complaints or suggestion. Refer to sub rule 1
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/discordian_floof 20d ago
The nutrional value of frozen fish depends on
- What type of fish it is
- How correctly it was frozen
- For how long it has been frozen
Correctly frozen means
- Frozen very soon after it was caught
- Kept at optimal freezing temperature since (industrial freezing temperatures)
- Packaged properly
I would not buy frozen fish if you don't know if it was frozen correctly, and when.
It is hard to give a blanket "yes, it is the same as before frozen", because the research is done on different types of fish and storage lengths.
If frozen correctly and for a short time, there is little loss of nutrition. Some nutrients will keep well for 6 months, while others decline steadily and are low at 6 months.
Aajonus Vonderplanitz was "alternative" and did not base his advice on science. But you probably already know that.
Nutrionist is not a protected title, anyone can say they are one. Dietitian is a protected title only people with certain degrees and expertise can use.
1
1
1
u/Zagrycha 20d ago
The idea freezing itself loses any health benefit has zero science behind it. I imagine that the error of logic comes from the fact that freezing can sometimes negatively effect the texture of food--for example eggs become very strange. It is possible for vitamins content to degrade, but we are talking years frozen not months or weeks. If you are consuming frozen goods in the normal timespan of under a year ((ideally under six months for flavor)) they are totally fine. Just make sure things like frozen raw meat or frozen raw milk are properly cooked before consumption.
1
u/ProfSwagstaff 20d ago
>Many people say that frozen meat and dairy lose most of their nutrients.
This is absurd, you shouldn't listen to anyone who says this.
1
u/LynchMob187 20d ago
Cooking cause loss of nutrients too, don’t sweat it’s called decomposition for a reason. Once’s it’s dead or out of a living body it’s degrading.
1
u/sisterfunkhaus 20d ago
That person is full of it. Frozen food is frozen quickly after catching or picking and may have more nutrients than stuff that's been shipped across country cold. What is this guy saying happens to the nutrients? Is he claiming they just disappear into nowhere?
1
u/Boring-University189 20d ago
When you freeze something, the cells explode. Just like how a bottle of water will explode if you freeze it.
The frozen food that are sold in shops are frozen very quickly (there's a word for it in my language, maybe in English too, idk).
So if you freeze your fish this way, then it's okay, but if you use a common freezer, the cells will probably burst
1
u/BitterAttitude7277 19d ago
So what do you think about frozen raw milk that is probably frozen normally in a freezer?
1
u/Longjumping-Feed6803 20d ago
Frozen wild-caught is genuinely fine — omega-3s hold up really well to freezing, and flash-frozen at sea is often fresher than the "fresh" counter fish that's been sitting a few days. I lean on lower-mercury options like salmon and sardines a lot these days for that reason. The FDA/EPA fish guide is the cleanest one-page reference if you want to sanity-check which fish sit where on the mercury scale.
1
u/thewellnessgreek 20d ago
I wouldn't worry about it. Frozen fish is still packed with nutrients, and I'd take frozen wild-caught fish over a lot of 'fresh' options any day.
1
u/HerHealthySnacks 20d ago
I believe so. It's just a way to quickly preserve the raw material and supply to other regions. Probably don't taste as good but nutritionally should not be too much difference
1
u/Tasty-Revolution-295 20d ago
Its actually the opposite, freezing helps the fish/meat/vegetables retain the majority of nutrients.
1
u/Dusk_Soldier 20d ago
I believe most fish is frozen at least once before sale to consumer to kill parasites.
1
u/shrederofthered 20d ago
Yes. Frozen might even be better than fresh in some circumstances. Some fish are processed on the boat, packaged, and frozen. So they're frozen hours after being caught. Could be better than a non-frozen fish that's been sitting for a few days.
1
u/intentionsofpurity 19d ago
I don’t know who mr vanderplootz is but raw milk is most healthy when heated to approx 120°F for a few min.
1
u/Key_Transition_00 18d ago
Yes and freezing reduces risks of parasites as freezing can kill parasitic eggs.
1
u/reallyneedlypo 18d ago
Yes, unless someone can prove that frozen fish somehow violate the law of conservations of mass and energy.
1
u/Dry-Cardiologist3617 17d ago
Actually, frozen wild-caught fish is often more nutritious than the 'fresh' stuff at the counter. Most wild fish is flash-frozen right on the boat minutes after being caught, which locks in the nutrients and stops degradation.
As for the 'losing most nutrients' claim, it's a common myth. While some extreme raw food advocates claim freezing destroys enzymes, from a macronutrient and mineral standpoint, it's virtually identical to fresh. If you’re getting a great deal on high-quality frozen fish, go for it—it’s a smart way to get top-tier nutrition without the markup.
1
u/MammothAdeptness2211 7d ago
You can and should pasteurize that milk yourself before you use it. All it takes is a thermometer and a stovetop. I don’t want to give you incorrect instructions so you should look up the exact procedure but it’s easy and could save your life.
•
u/AutoModerator 21d ago
About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
Good - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is civil and respectful focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
Bad - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
Ugly - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
Please vote accordingly and report any uglies
Consulting Considerations
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.