@healthierwiser

Did chicken beat red meat for your heart?

No. In this study poultry, such as chicken, came with slightly more heart disease or stroke, and so did red meat. Each 2 servings more of poultry a week came with a 4% higher risk of heart disease or stroke. Each 2 servings more of unprocessed red meat a week came with a 3% higher risk. Their likely ranges are the same, 1% to 6% higher, so the gap between the two could be chance. Processed meat, such as bacon and sausage, came with the most, a 7% higher risk at 2 servings a week than at none. For fish the figure was 0%, so no clear link (Zhong, 2020). Red meat also came with a 3% higher risk of dying, and poultry had no clear link with dying (Zhong, 2020). The authors say the poultry result may be related to fried chicken (Zhong, 2020). This was in 29,682 US adults, half of them followed for 19 years or more (Zhong, 2020). The study can't show the meats caused the heart disease or strokes. The table below puts all four foods in the order of the study's estimates. Every number links to its source.

The short version

The four foods, in the order of the study's estimates

The order is by the study's estimate of how much the risk of heart disease or stroke rose. It is not a proven ranking. For heart disease or stroke, the study compared 2 servings of processed meat a week with none. For the other three foods it compared any 2 servings more a week, such as 3 servings against 1. For the risk of dying, every row is for 2 servings more a week (Zhong, 2020). The likely range is in brackets. The middle column puts the same risk as more cases of heart disease or stroke in 100 people across 30 years.

OrderFoodRisk of heart disease or strokeMore cases in 100 people across 30 yearsRisk of dying
1, highest estimateProcessed meat, such as bacon, sausage and hot dogs7% higher (4% to 11% higher) (Zhong, 2020)1.74, about 2 (0.85 to 2.63) (Zhong, 2020)3% higher (2% to 5% higher) (Zhong, 2020)
2Poultry, such as chicken4% higher (1% to 6% higher) (Zhong, 2020)1.03, about 1 (0.36 to 1.70) (Zhong, 2020)1% lower, could be chance (3% lower to 2% higher) (Zhong, 2020)
3Unprocessed red meat3% higher (1% to 6% higher) (Zhong, 2020)0.62, under 1 (0.07 to 1.16) (Zhong, 2020)3% higher (1% to 5% higher) (Zhong, 2020)
4, lowest estimateFish, including shellfish0%, no clear link (2% lower to 2% higher) (Zhong, 2020)0.12, could be chance (0.40 fewer to 0.65 more) (Zhong, 2020)1% lower, could be chance (3% lower to 1% higher) (Zhong, 2020)

The study didn't test the four foods against each other. Poultry and red meat have the same likely range for heart disease or stroke, so which of the two comes higher could be chance. The percentages compare risks between groups. They aren't what any one person would gain or lose by changing what they eat.

A serving was 2 slices of bacon, 2 small sausages or 1 hot dog for processed meat. It was 4 ounces (about 113 g) of unprocessed red meat or poultry, or 3 ounces (about 85 g) of fish (Zhong, 2020).

Behind the poultry and fish results

The study of 29,682 people

Zhong and colleagues pooled the records of 6 long-running US health studies. People were 53.7 years old on average, and none had heart disease or a stroke behind them at the start. The study used one report of what each person usually ate, taken between 1985 and 2002. Half were followed for 19 years or more, some for up to 30. In that time 6,963 got heart disease or had a stroke, and 8,875 died (Zhong, 2020). Heart disease or stroke here means coronary heart disease, heart failure, a stroke, or dying of heart and blood vessel disease (Zhong, 2020).

No processed meat2 servings a weekabout 2 moreMore people with heart disease or stroke, per 100
2 servings are 4 bacon slices, 4 small sausages or 2 hot dogs. Counts are per 100 people across 30 years.

Get the supplement tier list

30 popular supplements, ranked S to F by what trials found. Leave your email and the tier list opens straight away. I'll only write when there's a study worth your time.

Every email will have an unsubscribe link.

How far to trust these numbers

Sources