Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Abaco

My Hobby: Long Range Fishing

42 posts in this topic

408694.jpg

That's a 1000-pound bluefin, a catch that will yield about 20K pieces of sushi (the record stands at 1,496lbs)

http://www.grindtv.c...eight in sushi/

Yes, they catch those in a few parts of the globe. Many are caught at Prince Edward Island, in Canada (a place I plan to fish someday). They also get them around New Zealand and, from what I understand, off the coast of Northern Europe.

I'll need a couple of pounds of that particular fish, preferably without the piece ever seeing refrigeration . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time I eat raw, that I know of, that's not been refrigerated is when we will catch a small tuna on the boat and the chef turns it into sashimi that afternoon for all of us. Otherwise, all of mine gets a hard freeze in my freezer. Right after catching it we spike it (to cease the struggle and ease the pain), bleed it and slip into into refrigerated sea water for the trip home. The freeze kills parasites.

I sat at my desk today eating a yellowtail sandwich. Yesterday, I deep fried slabs of yellotail from my freezer. As I enjoyed it today I realized that I'm fortunate to get to fish like this and eat like this. It was one of those "count your blessings" moment. Last night I had a bowl of Hawaiian poke that I made from a pound of yellow fin tuna. Good stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time I eat raw, that I know of, that's not been refrigerated is when we will catch a small tuna on the boat and the chef turns it into sashimi that afternoon for all of us. Otherwise, all of mine gets a hard freeze in my freezer. Right after catching it we spike it (to cease the struggle and ease the pain), bleed it and slip into into refrigerated sea water for the trip home. The freeze kills parasites.

That's the official rule we're supposed to follow in the US food industry. Practices, in other developed nations and in some of the better restaurants, is very, very different.

(The other thing to do is sever the spinal chord from the nerves that stretch into the body, as doing so prevents the seepage of certain enzymes that accelerate deterioration. So it's spike, run a hard wire into the spine a few times, bleed, ice.)

I sat at my desk today eating a yellowtail sandwich. Yesterday, I deep fried slabs of yellotail from my freezer. As I enjoyed it today I realized that I'm fortunate to get to fish like this and eat like this. It was one of those "count your blessings" moment. Last night I had a bowl of Hawaiian poke that I made from a pound of yellow fin tuna. Good stuff!

There's nothing like a great piece of fish. Once in a while I'll crave an aged prime steak (NY strip) or a blended burger that's even fattier than the steak, but most of the time fish and seafood rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some food for thought (pun intended) about eating fish and some of the comments that are not backed by science although some may think otherwise.

In a 1998 Denmark study of 60,000 women whom were trying to reduce their rate of heart disease by eating more "heart healthy" fish, it was found that they increased their rate of death by breast cancer instead. In different terms neither group lived any longer, those that aet fish died around the same time span as those that did not although they died from something different.

In 1991 researchers at the University of California at San Francisco came to the conclusion that cutting one's fat intake down to the recommended 30% (which is what is recommended by the American Heart Association) would have very little effect on increasing one's life span. As a matter of a fact that increase would amount to a total of an extra 3 months for women and 4 months for men.

It has been estimated that to see further increases in one's life that one should cut their daily saturated fat level intake down to about 10%. Well, in a study similar to the one above and published in 1994 by the Archives of Internal Medicine researchers concluded that by cutting one's saturated fat intake down to the 10% level it would increase one's life span in contrast to the recommended 30% total fat level with the following: men would extend their life's from 11 days to five months and women from 3.5 days to two months. Of course the people that can actually do this miss out on all the micro nutrients along with the very much needed cholesterol that comes in or with fat.

In a 1998 Havard Medical School research study that appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) it was found that saturated fat reduced the risk of stroke. Each 3% increase in total fat increased the chance of not having a stroke by 15%. For those that do not know this, Japanese have very low fat diets and hence have a very large rate of stroke. This has been shown not to be related to genetic reasons as Japanese men that have moved to Hawaii and eat larger amounts of fat have far fewer strokes.

Further food for thought. In 1976 Harvard Medical School started a sixteen year study with 115,195 Caucasian women which were between the ages of 35 and 55. While the study went on the mortality rate from heart disease averaged 1 in 100. The skinnier women in the group had the lowest mortality but the numbers did not substantially increase until the average 5 foot 4 inch woman increased her weight to 160 pounds. The mortality rate doubled when the average women reached 200 pounds which means 2 in 100 would die of heart disease. Looked at from a different perspective, skinny women had a 99% chance of not dying from heart disease while the fat/obese one's had a 98% chance of not dying from heart disease.

Now, I am almost certain someone will ask themselves why I am writing about this on this thread. My answer is that people on this thread are making statements about certain types of food intake like they are a panacea which they are not. If one likes fish (or fishing), eat it, if not then do not eat it. In general the only way to increase one's life through eating is by not overeating which means life extension and health has almost nothing to do with what one eats over their life. Enjoy the food you enjoy as it is not going to make much of a difference in the end as we are almost all going to die from eating and breathing as long as something else does not get us first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..... in the end as we are almost all going to die from eating and breathing as long as something else does not get us first.

A pretty drastic cure for longevity; to stop breathing and eating. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

414491.jpg

Guy Yocom, who last summer made headlines by landing a world-record yellowfin tuna, now has another trophy to place on prominent display: a gigantic cardboard check paid to the sum of $1 million. The tuna, caught south of Baja California's tip on an expedition out of Cabo San Lucas, weighed 427 pounds. (Photos of tuna and check presentation, and action video are posted below.)

http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/blog/51259/angler+collects+1-million+paycheck+for+catch+of+world-record+tuna/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My freezer is starting to empty out. So, I'm going out for albacore and bluefin in a few months. Wish me luck. Nothing grills up better than fresh albacore. I don't know why that is. The canned stuff everybody knows tastes like a different animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some food for thought (pun intended) about eating fish and some of the comments that are not backed by science although some may think otherwise.

In a 1998 Denmark study of 60,000 women whom were trying to reduce their rate of heart disease by eating more "heart healthy" fish, it was found that they increased their rate of death by breast cancer instead. In different terms neither group lived any longer, those that aet fish died around the same time span as those that did not although they died from something different.

In 1991 researchers at the University of California at San Francisco came to the conclusion that cutting one's fat intake down to the recommended 30% (which is what is recommended by the American Heart Association) would have very little effect on increasing one's life span. As a matter of a fact that increase would amount to a total of an extra 3 months for women and 4 months for men.

It has been estimated that to see further increases in one's life that one should cut their daily saturated fat level intake down to about 10%. Well, in a study similar to the one above and published in 1994 by the Archives of Internal Medicine researchers concluded that by cutting one's saturated fat intake down to the 10% level it would increase one's life span in contrast to the recommended 30% total fat level with the following: men would extend their life's from 11 days to five months and women from 3.5 days to two months. Of course the people that can actually do this miss out on all the micro nutrients along with the very much needed cholesterol that comes in or with fat.

In a 1998 Havard Medical School research study that appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) it was found that saturated fat reduced the risk of stroke. Each 3% increase in total fat increased the chance of not having a stroke by 15%. For those that do not know this, Japanese have very low fat diets and hence have a very large rate of stroke. This has been shown not to be related to genetic reasons as Japanese men that have moved to Hawaii and eat larger amounts of fat have far fewer strokes.

Further food for thought. In 1976 Harvard Medical School started a sixteen year study with 115,195 Caucasian women which were between the ages of 35 and 55. While the study went on the mortality rate from heart disease averaged 1 in 100. The skinnier women in the group had the lowest mortality but the numbers did not substantially increase until the average 5 foot 4 inch woman increased her weight to 160 pounds. The mortality rate doubled when the average women reached 200 pounds which means 2 in 100 would die of heart disease. Looked at from a different perspective, skinny women had a 99% chance of not dying from heart disease while the fat/obese one's had a 98% chance of not dying from heart disease.

Now, I am almost certain someone will ask themselves why I am writing about this on this thread. My answer is that people on this thread are making statements about certain types of food intake like they are a panacea which they are not. If one likes fish (or fishing), eat it, if not then do not eat it. In general the only way to increase one's life through eating is by not overeating which means life extension and health has almost nothing to do with what one eats over their life. Enjoy the food you enjoy as it is not going to make much of a difference in the end as we are almost all going to die from eating and breathing as long as something else does not get us first.

I find this interesting, too. It reminds me of the "7 Studies" report (if I'm remembering it correctly). It was a study the FDA used to start pushing their low-fat diet craze. But, when you learn that there were 15 other nations in the study and those, when included, proved no correlation between saturated fat and heart disease. Ray, the Denmark fish study - what kind of fish was consumed? Any kind? There are several I won't touch due to mercury, pesticides, etc. AFter I saw a California talapia farm I quit eating those.

For me, my line-caught tuna and mahi mahi has taken the place of red meat as a source of protein. An interesting thing happened to my body after I made the switch. My triglycerides dropped to unusually low levels and my HDL levels climbed. My LDL levels dropped. My doctor siad he's never seen a blood test come in like mine did. None of this may extend my life or make me healthier. But, for now, I like the adjustment. I feel very good. Better than I did pre-tuna fishing. I love a good burger once in a while. But, I almost never eat a big steak anymore. I enjoy eating it. It's the odd, weighted-down feeling I get afterward that I don't like.

I'm going out on the river by my house after dinner tonight in the hunt for striper. Wish me luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with nutrition is that we have no way of really testing long term effects of things. Personally, I am convinced that both *what* and *how much* we eat will have an impact on our quality of life and/or lifespan. The more I read and learn about the subject, the clearer it is that our knowledge is fuzzy. The field is also as polluted with politics as is climatology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with nutrition is that we have no way of really testing long term effects of things. Personally, I am convinced that both *what* and *how much* we eat will have an impact on our quality of life and/or lifespan. The more I read and learn about the subject, the clearer it is that our knowledge is fuzzy. The field is also as polluted with politics as is climatology.

I'm reading a book right now called, "In Defense of Food". I find it to be very informative and somewhat related to what you're saying here. The author gets into the fallacy of nutritionalism. We claim to know so much but the more we claim to know, the less healthy we become as a society (my editorial). I have seen some research that supports the theory that how much we eat is a key factor in lifespan, also.

The credo in "In Defense of Food": Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with nutrition is that we have no way of really testing long term effects of things. Personally, I am convinced that both *what* and *how much* we eat will have an impact on our quality of life and/or lifespan. The more I read and learn about the subject, the clearer it is that our knowledge is fuzzy. The field is also as polluted with politics as is climatology.

You are correct to think of the state of science of nutrition as being similar to climatology. In both cases they apparently understand well some specific mechanisms in a very narrow sense. Or to put it another way, there is understanding of some of the microprocesses in the system (whether it be human, or the climate). For example, in the human body it is known as fact that adding salt causes a small rise in blood pressure, while in the climate adding small traces of CO2 has a small perturbative effect on the temperature via the greenhouse effect. But there is apparently no rigorous understanding of how the myriad microprocesses integrate together to make the system in whole, e.g. how will a high carb and salt diet affect over a period of decades the cardiovascular system of an african american male who exercises twice a week? or, how will the steady addition of CO2 affect in net the climate of the Earth, accounting for all secondary feedback effects (clouds, water vapor, aerosols) which may not even change linearly in the concentration of CO2?

There is no answer to these things, because they don't know. They barely have a narrow understanding of only some of the relevant microprocesses, much less an understanding of how the microprocesses integrate together and are interdependent. For example, it is understood that Alzheimer's is caused by misfoldings of a protein, but the precise cause and cure for this misfolding remains mysterious. While in the climate clouds and cloud formation remain poorly understood, and notoriously difficult to model.

So both fields have this enormous vacuum of missing knowledge, and it gets filled by hucksters and charlatans and busybody politicians who just know what's best for us. In "Climate Science" we see politically motivated environmental fads that come and go every few decades, ranging from DDT to dying coral reefs to global warming to ozone depletion to organic food crazes and fear of genetically modified crops. In nutrition we see fad diets involving organic food crazes and fear of genetically modified crops (overlap!), Atkin's Diets, demonizing Sugar, and the latest iteration of nutrition rationalism is Paleodiet, which combines gross ignorance of anthropology with nutritional voodoo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got back from another trip. We were chasing bluefin on this trip, with an emphasis on "chasing". They are hard to fish for because they are boat shy. I caught a couple: one on the 40-pound range and one near 70-pounds. I also brought home a few yellowtail. The bluefin is the finest meat I've ever eaten. The bluefin really pulls hard when hooked. They are an amazing animial. I may get a mount of my larger one for the "fish wall" at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0