What is so bad about chicken skin?

[Ed_Hitchens]

I was never a big fan of boneless skinless chicken breasts, but ate them because they were supposedly so healthy and everybody "knew" that the sat fat in the dark meat and skin would eventually clog your arteries and deliver you to the nearest ER for the cardiac paddles. So white meat and the boneless skinless variety were given higher-priced tags and sold as the healthy choice.

Ok, so we know that the "fat is evil" dogma has been laid to rest, if not by the "establishment" then by the research that supports a more rational approach to dietary fats. It seems saturated fats might have an impact on health, but the impact is compounded by other junk that might be in the diet, such as refined sugars, grains, etc. Sat fat has many benefits that we have been missing out on for years due to the misguided info we've all been given and they have a rightful place in a balanced diet.

That being said, why do most Paleo-style diets recommend removing chicken skin? For some reason I can't imagine our ancestors taking the time to carefully remove what can often be the most tasty and satisfying part of the meal. I prefer the dark meat; nothing beats a well-seasoned broiled chicken thigh with a nice crispy skin. With a side of steamed greens and/or some asparagus lightly rolled in olive oil and butter, this is way more satisfying to my palate than a plain old chicken breast.

Is there something about chicken skin (and/or dark meat) I don't know about? Why do so many people still have a hangup about it despite what we now know about fats? To me it is all just protein and fat--good stuff--and as part of a balanced diet and active lifestyle does no harm at all.

[rocky1kenobi]

skin is supposed to be higher in n-6 PUFA that increase inflammation markers, and need to be offset with an equivalent amount of n-3 PUFA for a nice ratio.

If you eat less n-6, you'll need less n-3 (that are also prone to oxidation)

[jake1224]

High (what a relative term) anything in a diet is dangerous, #1.


#2, Paleos recommend removing the skin because, and this may just be speculation...people who consider themselves Paleo zealots are retarded.


#3 chicken skin is fawkin good and if you can make it fit in your macros, eat that sh*t.

[Ed_Hitchens]

skin is supposed to be higher in n-6 PUFA that increase inflammation markers, and need to be offset with an equivalent amount of n-3 PUFA for a nice ratio.

If you eat less n-6, you'll need less n-3 (that are also prone to oxidation)

But wouldn't eating a diet free of grains and refined foods (less synthetic vegetable oils) automatically lower your n-6 PUFA intake? Plus, if you are eating correctly, some fatty fish and/or a fish oil supplement is also on the menu.

[rocky1kenobi]

But wouldn't eating a diet free of grains and refined foods (less synthetic vegetable oils) automatically lower your n-6 PUFA intake? Plus, if you are eating correctly, some fatty fish and/or a fish oil supplement is also on the menu.

It will lower it, but when do you decide "Ok I removed enough inflammation foodz, the rest can stay" ?

If they think excess n-6 is bad for you, why not try and minimize it? It's not like chicken skin is a nice food you cannot do without