# fat content of steak vs. hamburger

**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fat-content-of-steak-vs-hamburger/93071
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [November 13, 2001, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fat-content-of-steak-vs-hamburger/93071 "2001-11-13T04:55:49Z")
**Posts on this page:** 5
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Kalashnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)
#### Post date: [November 13, 2001, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fat-content-of-steak-vs-hamburger/93071/1 "2001-11-13T04:55:49Z")

</div>

Ok, there are different kinds of hamburger and clearly the 90% or 95% lean type has less fat than the 80 or 75, and thus is healthier and lower in calories. I think it tastes better too.

How does this (90% lean) compare with a lean steak? Say a nice top round with all the outside fat trimmed off and very little marbleing? The steak looks a little leaner than the 90%, but is there a significant difference?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![funguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@funguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/funguy)
#### Post date: [November 13, 2001, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fat-content-of-steak-vs-hamburger/93071/2 "2001-11-13T05:19:57Z")

</div>

they are very comparable in fat content since 90% burger is usually ground top round trimmed fully. as far as taste and texture the top round steak without fat would be a bit tough at best as far as i remember the leanest steak available is the flank steak

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Wump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ed655f/32.png) [@Wump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wump)
#### Post date: [November 13, 2001, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fat-content-of-steak-vs-hamburger/93071/3 "2001-11-13T07:52:35Z")

</div>

In a burgur, fat and blood equal “juicyness”. Seeing as most burgurs are cooked medium-well to well, you lose a lot of the “juice” from the blood, leaving you with just fat left. a burgur will therefore be a “juicier” burgur if it has a higher fat content… this of course has it’s limitations. A burgur that is 50% fat is just gonna taste crap

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Wump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ed655f/32.png) [@Wump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wump)
#### Post date: [November 13, 2001, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fat-content-of-steak-vs-hamburger/93071/4 "2001-11-13T07:58:14Z")

</div>

geez, forgetfull me…

A steak with the equivalent fat content of a burgur taken from the same cut of meat will generally be just as good if not better than the burgur.

Why? Because it is more acceptable, and safer, to cook a steak med-rare than it is a burgur. A med-rare steak will taste nicer than a well done steak/burgur. Slthough i spose that could be slated as personal preferance.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![The\_Great\_Gazoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/67e7ee/32.png) [@The\_Great\_Gazoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Gazoo)
#### Post date: [November 13, 2001, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fat-content-of-steak-vs-hamburger/93071/5 "2001-11-13T15:03:02Z")

</div>

Somebody has to ask, Wump - a burgur?? Is this some new spelling? 🙂

It reminds me of bulgur, which would indicate a vegetarian leaning???
