I loves me some jerky and would eat it all the time were it not for the price and suspicion that it might not be that great for me. It’s red meat after all, right. The variety of Jack Links I eat, for example, is low in fat and high in protein, but super high in sodium. And isn’t there something about preserved and pickled things that make them carcinogenic?
Please give me the straight dope and assuage my fears so I can enjoy jerky guiltlessly.
If you make it yourself, you won’t have to worry about additives other than the ones you add, and it’s a lot cheaper. Use whole beef, not ground. You slice meat, marinate in something as simple as worcesterhire and soy sauce mixed together, dry it in the oven at about 180F, and eat. Lots of recipes online. You can go teriyaki, lime-cilantro-tequila, whatever.
Definitely better to make yourself. Easy too. The sodium content in Jack Links alone will seriously F you up after a while. I rock the Jack Links myself, and even worse, those giant Slim Jims. A guilty pleasure for sure, but I certainly don’t eat a whole bag at once. There’s like 4-5 “servings” a bag, each with something like 20-30%(sometimes up to 40% depending on flavor) of your recommended daily sodium intake. DIY jerky will still be pretty salty, but at least you’ll have a measure of control regarding whatever else Jack Links is putting in theirs.
Not to mention the quality of the meat that goes into it. As for Slim Jims, I don’t think anyone would eat them if they knew what they were made out of.
Eh; I grew up in Maryland. Eggs and scrapple are standard fare around here. Slims Jims don’t scare me!
So besides the salt, beef jerky’s pretty OK in moderation? Say, compared to potato chips.
I actually happen to have a package of Jack Links beef jerky in front of me right now. Lets see what the package says:
Note that the following information is per serving, of which there are 3 in a 3.25oz package.
Calories: 80
Calories from fat: 10
Total Fat: 1g
Saturated Fat: 0g
Trans Fat: 0g
Cholesterol: 25mg
Sodium: 520mg
Total Carbohydrates: 5g
Dietary Fiber: 0g
Sugars: 4g
Protein: 14g
Vitamin A: 0%
Vitamin C: 0%
Calcium: 0%
So based on this I would say not terribly unhealthy other than the sodium, but not very healthy either. However there’s 1560mg of salt in a single bag. Holy high blood pressure Batman, that’s a hell of a lot of salt. Especially for a snack, considering most people are going to eat 2-3 meals on top of this. I personally would say* avoid it if you have high blood pressure, eat it sparingly otherwise. It doesn’t seem to have much in the way of vitamins and nutrition. The protein is nice but that seems to be the only major benefit. I’m sure there are much healthier snacks you can eat.
*Keep in mind that I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV. I am also not a dietician, nutritionist, or any other area of expertise that involves food or medicine. However, I do eat food every day (in an amateur capacity).
ETA: The above nutritional information is taken from Jack Links “Sweet & Hot” flavored variety
Missed the edit window and wanted to add this:
The days of “The Urban Jungle” are long gone. While I don’t doubt that some of the less desirable parts of the cow make it into ground meat, hotdogs, sausage, etc, today, by and large if it says “beef” in the label then bah gawd that’s what’s in it. If you have (current) information to the contrary please post it.
No big deal. Drink more water.
The bag of Oberto’s Peppered Beef Jerky I’m looking at right now contains: beef, brown sugar, dextrose, sugar, salt, corn syrup, natural smoke flavor, water, vinegar, flavorings, molasses, soy sauce, sodium erythorbate, yeast extract, caramel color, citric acid, and sodium nitrite. Not too bad; better than some lunch meats.
I may not be interpreting you correctly, but for anyone with a tendency to high blood pressure (or edema or heart problems like ‘congestive heart failure’), that amount of salt is most definitely not a good idea. And, drinking lots of water with it may satisfy your thirst but will have no effect on the salt’s deleterious effects as mentioned.
If anyone is interested, here is a very recent, very important (IMO), article about the effects of salt on people’s health. Worth a look even if you’re not familiar with the jargon therein.
That counts as “light seasoning” for one British soup company…
Can’t read the article without a subscription.
My understanding was that some individuals are sodium-sensitive, and for them low-sodium diet is important for cardiovascular health; but for most other people, moderately high levels of salt aren’t a big problem. Is the current thinking different from that?
I am just another jerky lover, and I prefer to make mine with hamburger and a jerky gun.
however there is more to jerky than simple sodium that is listed on the package, **ME THINKS. **
Curing salts are used in jerky making and they are more than just salt!
That being said, we(My Church Family) collected venison last fall just before the start of hunting season and made up 200 lbs of jerky that was then sent to a couple of family members serving in Iraq.
It was a simple project, but the rewards were 10 fold. We received back many letters attesting to the impact of that ministry.
We give all the Glory to HIM, who gave his life for us so that we may also be saved:)
My apologies. Here’s the abstract which is quite informative by itself.
Yes, current thinking is that across-the-board decreases in salt intake are effective in preventing things like stroke and kidney failure. From the abstract:
ETA: “CHD” (above) = coronary heart disease, i.e. heart attacks
Yes, just remember that it’s pretty calorically dense. It takes about a pound of beef to make 1/3 of a pound of jerky, so it’s easy to eat a lot of calories worth of it if you’re not paying attention. Not a concern for everyone, of course, but if you’re watching your calorie intake, you might want to weigh it before eating.
There’s a difference between public health and individual health. If everyone cuts their salt consumption, reducing the incidence of stroke by 50% in the 10% of people who are salt sensitive, but having no effect on the 90% of the people who are not, that is a public health success.
From an individual health point of view 90% of the people have restricted their salt intake for no perceivable benefits. You have to look at the number needed to treat to weigh the effectiveness. The paper you linked to looks at whole populations, not individuals.
Perhaps, but the authors used (deliberately, I assume) the wording “all segments of the population”.
Although I couldn’t link to the full text version, your point is also specifically addressed in the body of the paper. Here is a relevant quote:
(underlining, by me, added for emphasis).
Now, before you point out the modifier “at risk”, I will say that “at risk” is not referring to those who are ‘salt sensitive’. The context throughout the article indicates that “at risk” is referring to adults at risk of hypertension, stroke, heart attacks, and so forth. Possibly not applicable to each and every soul in the US, but to a (large) majority nonetheless (and nowhere near the 10% you state).
[quote=“KarlGauss, post:11, topic:530329”]
I may not be interpreting you correctly, but for anyone with a tendency to high blood pressure (or edema or heart problems like ‘congestive heart failure’), that amount of salt is most definitely not a good idea. QUOTE]
No, that’s not what I meant. I was referring to someone otherwise not predisposed to high blood pressure.
Well, in the abstract at least, “all segments of the population” is immediately followed by specific mentions of “blacks”, “women”, “older adults” and “younger adults”. Again, I haven’t seen the paper itself, but the abstract makes me think their ‘segments’ are not ‘sodium-sensitive’ and ‘sodium tolerant’ but rather various demographic ones, all of which are a mix of sodium tolerant and sodium sensitive. Note that, again in the abstract, the authors compare the effect of salt reduction to the effects of tobacco use reduction and obesity reduction, both of which are clearly issues that only affect some individuals.
I think rather than guessing what this public health study means, maybe someone can find recent research/review papers on the role of sodium in not-sodium-sensitive individuals.