|It's often cited as the source of all nutritional (and environmental) evil and still: The experimental evidence informs us that the epidemiologically instigated politically subsidized meat hating is unreasonable.|
It's rather a matter of the end-consumer products that are made of pork. sausages & co are not good for your health, but that's not because they are made of pork, but rather because they consist of highly processed waste no one of you would eat, if it was served in its original form - and that in spite of the fact that the unprocessed garbage would probably be healthier than the final hot dog.
The participants, , 49 overweight or obese adults were randomly assigned to consume up to 1kg/week of pork, chicken or beef, in an otherwise unrestricted diet for three months. To avoid the "saussages" effect the male and female participants were given seven (men) or five (women) portions of "their" meat per week and told to incorporate it into their habitual diet.
|Table 1: Energy & Nutrient intake at baseline and during the meaty intervention period (Murphy. 2014)|
"All participants were seen fortnightly to monitor body weight, discuss any issues arising in the intervention and collect a selection of frozen meat products including lean beef or pork steak or chicken breast, stir fry, diced and mince. All participants kept a weekly log of study meat consumption" (Murphy. 2014)Next to their food intake, the subjects also had to log their physical activity in three-day logs (2x week + 1x weekend).
This data was then used by the researchers to calculate the energy expenditure (kcal) for every 15 min period in a 24 h day according to nine categories of different types of activity (e.g., sleeping, playing sports, gardening etc.) and multiplied by the appropriate physical activity level factor for the reported intensity of exercise.
Just to clarify things: There was no energy restriction and/or exercise regimen involved and the data the scientists gathered confirms that the only meaningful changes that occurred were the intended substitutions / additions of lean pork, beef and chicken meat!As it turned out, there were no differences in either the total energy or macronutrient intake between the groups; and on the micronutrient side of things, the only measurable difference was a minimally (but statistically significantly) elevated zinc intake in the beef group.
|Figure 1: Changes in body composition during the 6 months pork, chicken, beef phase (Murphy. 2014)|Figure 2: Lean mas at baseline and after the meaty intervention (Murphy. 2014)
- ... there was an extremely health-relevant 7% increase in lean mass (that's +3.5 ± 0.1kg (!); see Figure 2) in and all women
- ... the researchers did not observe any negative side effects in either of the groups.
- Allison, D. B., et al. "Weight loss increases and fat loss decreases all-cause mortality rate: results from two independent cohort studies." International Journal of Obesity & Related Metabolic Disorders 23.6 (1999).
- Murphy, Karen J., et al. "A Comparison of Regular Consumption of Fresh Lean Pork, Beef and Chicken on Body Composition: A Randomized Cross-Over Trial." Nutrients 6.2 (2014): 682-696.
- Petzke, Klaus J., Susen Lemke, and Susanne Klaus. "Increased fat-free body mass and no adverse effects on blood lipid concentrations 4 weeks after additional meat consumption in comparison with an exclusion of meat in the diet of young healthy women." Journal of nutrition and metabolism 2011 (2011).