The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-12-2005, 01:06 PM
RetroVertigo RetroVertigo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Difference between white and dark meat

My girlfriend won't eat dark meat from poultry. She says it grosses her out to much. I always tell her it all chicken, but she refuses to eat it. She says it taste, and feels different.

So what is the difference between white and dark meat?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 09-12-2005, 01:11 PM
chrisk chrisk is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern ontario
Posts: 5,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetroVertigo
My girlfriend won't eat dark meat from poultry. She says it grosses her out to much. I always tell her it all chicken, but she refuses to eat it. She says it taste, and feels different.

So what is the difference between white and dark meat?
"In chickens, the flight muscles, not adapted for sustained use, have less oxygen-carrying myoglobin than the walking muscles, and are thus lighter in color. This is the distinction between "white meat" and "dark meat". Waterfowl are adapted for sustained flight, and their breast meat is dark." (From the wikipedia article on Poultry.)

So... white meat is white because it's from muscles that have become redundant and are not actually used by the birds. Dark meat is from parts of the chicken that actually got exercise.

Kinda spooky, when you think about it, that we prefer the lazy part of the chicken. But I'm guilty of a fondness for white meat too.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-12-2005, 01:23 PM
Jackknifed Juggernaut Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Which one is healthier?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-12-2005, 02:06 PM
Hey, It's That Guy! Hey, It's That Guy! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Most people agree boneless skinless chicken breasts are as healthy as you can get, so that's the white meat. But I personally love the juicy dark meat of chicken thighs.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-12-2005, 02:06 PM
Teter Teter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Meat is Good

The dark meat of birds is "red" or slow-twitch muscle. The white meat is "white" or fast-twitch muscle. Most animals have some combination of these two fiber types, though the destinctions may be less obvious. Why are they differently colored? The slow muscles have more mitochondria (full of red pigmented cyctochrome complexes), and more myoglobin packed within the muscle cells. This gives them a darker, reddish color. Humans also have dark and white meat. Some of our muscles, like the soleus in the lower leg are almost all slow twitch "red" fibers. Others such as those controlling eye movements are made up of only fast twitch fibers. Function dictates form in these highly specialized muscles. The majority of human muscles contain a mixture of both slow and fast fiber types. From an evolutionary standpoint this makes sense. World class athletes are typically freaks for lack of a better word. They have a much more favorable ratio of fast twitch and slow twitch fibers. A world class marathon runner will be mostly dark meat while a world class sprinter will be mostly white meat.

So, now you know which buffet line to get into when attending the Donnor Party Olympic Buffet.


As far as the health factor goes there is really not much difference. As long as the skin is removed there will be a pretty low fat content.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-12-2005, 02:12 PM
Telemark Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Hub of the sports world
Posts: 12,234
White meat has less fat.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-12-2005, 02:13 PM
Cowgirl Jules Cowgirl Jules is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
So which are wings?

My friends and I were debating this last week. I say wings are dark meat (mostly because of how they taste, and because wings do get some exercise,) and they were saying they were white meat.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-12-2005, 02:15 PM
Hey, It's That Guy! Hey, It's That Guy! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
I think wings and breasts are white, and thighs and legs are dark.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-12-2005, 02:21 PM
Teter Teter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bad Voodoo Lou
I think wings and breasts are white, and thighs and legs are dark.

building on my earlier post. the legs and thighs are always working either in walking or stabilization in flight. the wings work in short bursts. marathoners and sprinters
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-12-2005, 02:22 PM
Teter Teter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bad Voodoo Lou
I think wings and breasts are white, and thighs and legs are dark.
forgot to include that this quote is correct
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-12-2005, 02:34 PM
Gymnopithys Gymnopithys is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,091
"In chickens, the flight muscles, not adapted for sustained use, have less oxygen-carrying myoglobin than the walking muscles, and are thus lighter in color. This is the distinction between "white meat" and "dark meat". Waterfowl are adapted for sustained flight, and their breast meat is dark." (From the wikipedia article on Poultry.)

Ostriches don't fly, yet their breast meat is dark...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-12-2005, 02:39 PM
Cowgirl Jules Cowgirl Jules is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teter
marathoners and sprinters
Ah, see, I get that analogy more than the old one. Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-12-2005, 02:41 PM
Teter Teter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowgirl Jules
Ah, see, I get that analogy more than the old one. Thanks!
any 'ole time
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-12-2005, 02:51 PM
PBear42 PBear42 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
As far as the health factor goes there is really not much difference. As long as the skin is removed there will be a pretty low fat content.
Agreed. To be specific, 5.3 ounces (1/3 lb) of boneless skinless light meat has 164 calories, dark meat 180 calories. In fairness, dark has more fat, 5.8 grams v. 2.1 for light, but light has more protein (34.4 v. 29.6), which brings the calorie counts closer together. (All values derived from the Corrine T. Netzer Encyclopedia of Food Values, 1992.) Since very, very few of us suffer from protein deficiency, it's calories that matter, so, nutritionally, the two meats are functionally equivalent. On a related note, it amazes me how many products boast of being made with "100% white meat," and then add lots of fat to the product, e.g., nuggets and pot pies.

As for the difference in taste and texture, I have to agree with the girlfriend. Only, to me, it's dark meat that's superior. As my mother says, that's why Baskin Robbins makes more than one flavor of ice cream. Though I have to confess I think that, for some people, the anti-dark bias is psychological.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-12-2005, 03:40 PM
Saltire Saltire is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 3,444
Not much to add, except that the Perfect Master has handled this one.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a981204b.html
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-12-2005, 03:48 PM
UncleRojelio UncleRojelio is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ATX
Posts: 4,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetroVertigo
So what is the difference between white and dark meat?
I feel your pain Retro. I had no idea there was any difference till I got married. To me, chicken is chicken. But she, and her whole family practically vomit at the idea of eating dark meat. It is just plain weird, but the upside is that there are always two big ol' turkey legs just for me.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-12-2005, 04:00 PM
Kalhoun Kalhoun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
My husband hates dark meat; I love it. I buy thighs every month or so, but he's not happy when I do.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-12-2005, 09:30 PM
Bookkeeper Bookkeeper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ottawa, Canuckistan
Posts: 2,156
I also find the dark meat tastier. White meat is OK, but rather bland flavoured.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-12-2005, 09:56 PM
RetroVertigo RetroVertigo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Saltire thank you for the link.

You should see this girl freakout when we used to go Mcdonalds and get
mcnuggets (the old ones). She would bite into each one to see the color of the
meat, and end up eating two out of ten.

Maybe if i show her this she will calm down about it.
What i'm i saying, she will eat only a certain color of lettuce also
(that i'm afraid is a different thread).
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-12-2005, 10:06 PM
lorinada lorinada is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Another vote for dark, chicken and turkey. Dark meat has much better flavor and texture. And it's not nearly so dry. Because I have cats I only buy boneless chicken and boneless thighs are sadly hard to come by, so sometimes I'm forced to buy breasts. I had breast tonight and I finally realized that it's not even that I prefer dark meat chicken, it's that I really don't like the white at all. I don't think I'm going to buy it again.

I still like white turkey meat, but not as much as the dark. Good thing, becuase turkey thighs are even harder to find than boneless chicken thighs. For some reason my cats don't raid the garbage for turkey bones so I don't have to worry about trying to locate boneless turkey thighs! I'm sure they don't even exist.

Give me a thigh any day.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-13-2005, 02:41 AM
Mangetout Mangetout is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Kingdom of Butter
Posts: 47,508
The dark meat might actually be poisonous or something; you'd better let me eat it, no, really - I don't mind - you guys have the best bit - the white meat, I'll just take care of the disposal of this nasty, sticky, juicy, delicious... I mean dangerous dark meat. Tee hee.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-13-2005, 07:31 AM
Who_me? Who_me? is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Personally, I don't think there's enough difference to love one and hate the other. Dark meat has more flavor, white meat is dryer... but all in all, they're both chicken.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-13-2005, 07:53 AM
CalMeacham CalMeacham is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Someone once asked The Playboy Advisor "What's the difference between Dark Meat and White Meat?"

Their immediate response?


"Is this a Sex Question?"
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-13-2005, 07:56 AM
cmkeller cmkeller is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
I prefer dark - particularly the drumsticks - not so much because it's tastier (though it is, to me) but because it can be easily eaten with the hands, like corn on the cob.

As long as we're on the subject of pultry physiology, I'm going to hijack to something I'd always been curious about. On the drumstick, coming out of the cartilage cap at the top, there's this pointy thin bone, kind of like a toothpick. Does that bone have a name?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-13-2005, 08:51 AM
caveman caveman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: City of the Violet Crown
Posts: 1,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller
I prefer dark - particularly the drumsticks - not so much because it's tastier (though it is, to me) but because it can be easily eaten with the hands, like corn on the cob.

As long as we're on the subject of pultry physiology, I'm going to hijack to something I'd always been curious about. On the drumstick, coming out of the cartilage cap at the top, there's this pointy thin bone, kind of like a toothpick. Does that bone have a name?
I think that's the (chicken equivalent of the) fibula, while the main portion of the drumstick is the tibia.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-13-2005, 08:53 AM
caveman caveman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: City of the Violet Crown
Posts: 1,459
Here's a diagram, which should hold true for most birds: http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/La...rdSkeleton.gif
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-13-2005, 09:17 AM
cmkeller cmkeller is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by caveman
I think that's the (chicken equivalent of the) fibula, while the main portion of the drumstick is the tibia.
Looks like it, thanks for the diagram. Though the main drumstick is apparently called "Tibiotarsus"...looks like birds have an extra leg bone that most mammals don't.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-13-2005, 01:13 PM
Teter Teter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller
...looks like birds have an extra leg bone that most mammals don't.
which one? are you talking about the hypotarsus? if so this just a situation similar to many other animals (commonly noted "crooked as a dogs hind leg")
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-13-2005, 02:10 PM
Corii Corii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisk

So... white meat is white because it's from muscles that have become redundant and are not actually used by the birds. Dark meat is from parts of the chicken that actually got exercise.

Kinda spooky, when you think about it, that we prefer the lazy part of the chicken. But I'm guilty of a fondness for white meat too.
The last time I grabbed a chicken to bake when it came out the wings and thighs were white meat. That made me sad.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-13-2005, 02:11 PM
Corii Corii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
I should specify it made me sad both because I felt bad for the poor chicken that never got a chance to really walk and fly, and because I prefer dark meat.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-13-2005, 03:09 PM
cmkeller cmkeller is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by teter
which one? are you talking about the hypotarsus? if so this just a situation similar to many other animals
Yes, that's the one I was referring to. True, dogs hind legs look crooked like that, but the skeletal morphology can be matched in terms familiar on the human skeleton. Despite the similarity in shape, dogs hind legs are not, internally, like chickens'.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-13-2005, 03:23 PM
Teter Teter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller
Despite the similarity in shape, dogs hind legs are not, internally, like chickens'.
i am guessing that internal morphology has evolved into what is now unique to avians. i continue my speculation that the bird doesn't have an extra leg bone but rather an evolutionary adaptation of the foot. similar to other animals.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.