Fatty foods are not necessarily inferior to lean foods. The natural diet and living conditions are more critical to determining the health quality.
There is a school of thought that compares foods based on chemical composition. I think the approach is too simplistic because most people in the modern era have absorption problems, so the focus in an age when most food is industrialized must be different.
Turkey is the leanest of all meats, rich in protein and nutrients. At the same time, it is meat in every respect and very acidic to the intestines. Being lean meat and relatively low in calories is both an advantage and a disadvantage from a health perspective.
I recommend that people consider the quality of food according to 3 main parameters:
- Food is easy to digest and easily and efficiently absorbed. Fatter foods are often easier to digest.
- Food rich in protein is most often very acidic to the intestines, negatively affecting the proliferation of pathogens in the gastrointestinal tract.
- The quality of the animal's food and living conditions is essential. An animal that receives processed foods, antibiotics, growth-boosting chemicals, and hormones will not produce quality meat, which is particularly inflammatory.
The answer to who the healthiest "chicken" is is not unequivocal and depends mainly on the quality of the food and living conditions the animal receives.
- Waterfowl (duck and goose) have a layer of fat under the skin, making them very crispy in the oven and fat in taste. Duck and goose have a much higher caloric value than turkey or chicken, but coupled with the conclusion that they are less healthy, it is not necessarily correct. Their meat is very soft and easy to digest, and their natural fat (if of good quality) lubricates the intestines and the digestive system.
If I had to choose, I would choose the meat with the best-growing conditions and nutrition. Fat percentage is a secondary consideration because the existing caloric calculations are also inaccurate.
