• Eat Chicken Instead Of Beef


      From Ergo-Log

      Finally: hard evidence that meat consumption shortens life expectancy – at least as far as epidemiological research is capable of providing hard evidence – comes from researchers at Harvard, led by Walter Willett and Frank Hu. Their study in the Archives of Internal Medicine tells those who want to pursue a protein-rich diet what the healthy alternatives are for meat.

      Researchers have known for years that a high intake of red meat – a name that covers muscle meat of mammalian origin – increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and reduces life expectancy. [Arch Intern Med. 2009 Mar 23; 169(6): 562-71.] The organic iron in red meat is a bit too much of a good thing for many adults; and substances such as heterocyclic amines - which are created when meat is fried - are pretty unhealthy.

      But do you live longer if you replace red meat with other, healthier, protein-rich foods? Until now there was no study that had shown this.

      Harvard researchers used data from the Healthy Professionals Follow-up Study and the Nurses Health Study. The first study followed forty thousand men between 1986 and 2008; the second eighty thousand women between 1980 and 2008. When the Harvardians put all the data together they saw that for each time red meat was consumed in a day, the mortality risk rose by 16 percent. Processed meat [Processed red meat] in particular, such as salami, bacon, hot dogs, boosted the risk of mortality.

      In 2005, so 11 years later, the researchers worked out which of the participants were still alive. This way they were able to conclude that a high degree of life satisfaction reduced the risk of mortality in men [immediately below] and women [bottom table]. The effect was particularly strong among the women.



      In the figures above the upper graph shows the risk of dying for men. The lower graph shows the risk for women.

      The relationships the Harvard researchers found were statistically significant, even though the risks they discovered were not big. Alcohol abuse, smoking and overweight are all riskier activities. On the other hand though: if all the participants in the studies ate no more than 42 g red meat per day, then 9.3 percent of the deceased men and 7.6 percent of the deceased women would still have been alive in 2008.

      The researchers were able to calculate the effect of substituting nuts, chicken, fish, low-fat dairy and other foods for red meat. As you can see below, nuts are the healthiest meat substitutes. But nuts are not a good source of protein. In second place is chicken. And chicken is a good source of protein.


      Source:
      Arch Intern Med. 2012 Apr 9;172(7):555-63.

      Source: http://ergo-log.com/chickenbeef.html
      Comments 7 Comments
      1. Torobestia's Avatar
        Torobestia -
        I was going to say, the point they make about the dangers of red meat in relation to how it's usually prepared is a good point. I don't believe much of the flack red meat catches, though, since it comes from the FDA nutrition club that still gets the dietary causes of obesity and diabetes wrong. But on the front of meat preparation, I find it suspect that replacing red meat with chicken would suddenly lead to such life extending benefits when chicken is often prepared the same way as beef (I grill my beef/steaks and chicken with the same grill). I suspect a lot has to do with the selection of red meat they use, a point not controlled for in this study.
      1. aceroni's Avatar
        aceroni -
        ^no red meat? kiss your gains goodbye!!!!
      1. v4lu3s's Avatar
        v4lu3s -
        Statistics prove correlation not causation.
      1. Whacked's Avatar
        Whacked -
        This study fails to discuss the general lifestyle associated with meat eaters. Typically, when not eating "meat" for protein as we bb'ers do, meat-eaters are usually the fat slobs you see stuffing their face. Vegans are usually healthy largely due to their life style choice. They simply fail to see the falty logic behind giving up meat but they do foster healthy lives. Again, traditionally speaking, most people, large "MEN" love meat and don't give a hoot about their health.
      1. carpee's Avatar
        carpee -
        Originally Posted by Whacked View Post
        This study fails to discuss the general lifestyle associated with meat eaters. Typically, when not eating "meat" for protein as we bb'ers do, meat-eaters are usually the fat slobs you see stuffing their face. Vegans are usually healthy largely due to their life style choice. They simply fail to see the falty logic behind giving up meat but they do foster healthy lives. Again, traditionally speaking, most people, large "MEN" love meat and don't give a hoot about their health.
        plus the world is falling apart, so why give up red meat for a supposed few extra years
      1. swampdweller's Avatar
        swampdweller -
        For years some physicians have avoided red meat when designing heart-healthy diets for their patients. Turns out that's a bum steer, according to a study published in the June 28 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.
        With a grant from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, researchers at Johns Hopkins, the Chicago Center for Clinical Research and the University of Minnesota Hospital and Clinics put 191 adults with elevated cholesterol levels on a comprehensive low-fat, low-cholesterol diet that included lean meat. Patients were randomly assigned to consume 80 percent of their meat intake from lean red meats (beef, veal or pork) for five to seven days a week for nine months, or to eat lean white meats (fish or poultry) for the same length of time.
        At study's end, subjects in both groups had nearly identical changes in their cholesterol levels. All saw an average decrease of 1 to 3 percent in low-density lipoproteins, or "bad cholesterol"; an average increase of 2 percent in high-density lipoproteins, or "good cholesterol"; and an average decrease of 6 percent in triglycerides, molecules needed to make fats.
        "Chicken and fish traditionally have been considered healthier than red meat because many cuts of red meat can have too much saturated fat," says Peter O. Kwiterovich, M.D., director of The Johns Hopkins University Lipid Clinic. "Now, lean cuts of red meat are readily available to consumers. If you follow a heart-healthy diet, it doesn't make a difference whether you eat red meat or white meat, as long as you choose lean cuts."
      1. kohai66's Avatar
        kohai66 -
        So as a believer in the "eat right for your blood type" concept, I experienced first hand that as a 'B' blood type chicken is definitely an avoid for some. Several years ago I did a ketosis diet and ate mostly chicken as my protein source along with other sources including whey powders. As expected my body did become weaker due to the lack of carbs, however once complete I continued to eat lots of chicken. My trainer was stumped as to why my poundages and overall strength remained impaired for sometime. Years later reading about blood type dieting it made sense, shouldn't eat chicken (at least you should restrict how much) if you are type B. So, I would be interested to see how this fits into the studies results.

        Log in
        Log in