Is there a link between poultry consumption and longevity?

In summary, poultry and fish are both popular sources of protein with distinct nutritional profiles. Poultry, such as chicken and turkey, is rich in protein, vitamins, and minerals, and is generally lower in fat compared to red meat. Fish, on the other hand, is known for its omega-3 fatty acids, which are beneficial for heart health, along with being a great source of protein and essential nutrients. Both options can be part of a balanced diet, but dietary preferences, health considerations, and sustainability issues may influence individual choices between the two.
  • #1
Spathi
Gold Member
101
10
TL;DR Summary
How long do people who eat poultry live?
There is some evidence that the vegetarians live longer that people who eat meat:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522033524

1) a very low meat intake was associated with a significant decrease in risk of death in 4 studies, a nonsignificant decrease in risk of death in the fifth study, and virtually no association in the sixth study; 2) 2 of the studies in which a low meat intake significantly decreased mortality risk also indicated that a longer duration (≥ 2 decades) of adherence to this diet contributed to a significant decrease in mortality risk and a significant 3.6-y (95% CI: 1.4, 5.8 y) increase in life expectancy;

In one book I have also read that people who eat fish (pescatarians) live as long as the vegetarians. Also, there was the information that vegans live shorter than the vegetarians.
So, the fish is a good food, however it is sometimes tasty and sometimes not so good, while the chicken is always tasty. So I have a question: have there been performed any research relating the health and longevity of poultry-eaters?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
Spathi said:
TL;DR Summary: How long do people who eat poultry live?

There is some evidence that the vegetarians live longer that people who eat meat:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522033524



In one book I have also read that people who eat fish (pescatarians) live as long as the vegetarians. Also, there was the information that vegans live shorter than the vegetarians.
So, the fish is a good food, however it is sometimes tasty and sometimes not so good, while the chicken is always tasty. So I have a question: have there been performed any research relating the health and longevity of poultry-eaters?
It is difficult to ring fence something like that in my opinion.



You have genetics in the mix, ethnicity and all the other environmental factors besides diet that contribute to your health.



Your GP will usually recommend a balanced diet, less processed food/fast food, low salt and sugar (look at the contents), fresh fruit and veg, no smoking if possible, alcohol within guidelines and exercise.



Some red meat links below to colorectal cancer, heart disease and Hypertension below.



https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-07-2...creased-risk-heart-disease-oxford-study-shows



https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/.../red-meat-colorectal-cancer-genetic-signature



https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10060708/



Chicken specifically?



Chicken (breast is best) is high in protein (tastes great) but is not as low as Turkey in terms of fat and avoid the skin (where much of the fat is) if you are watching your fat content.



Tuna white fish low in fat, oily fish has some “good fats” like Omega 3 – Literally tonnes of information on this.



I like double cheese burgers, at my age right now however? Once per month perhaps.



Some tips here.



https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/how-to-eat-a-balanced-diet/eight-tips-for-healthy-eating/
 
  • #3
pinball1970 said:
Chicken (breast is best) is high in protein (tastes great) but is not as low as Turkey in terms of fat and avoid the skin (where much of the fat is) if you are watching your fat content.

I have already heard that breast is better, and it's a pity - for me the legs are more tasty. Do you agree?
And you want to say that the fat is something bad? I have heard that it's vice versa, one should eat the fat instead of carbohydrates if he does not want to become obese.
 
  • #4
Spathi said:
I have already heard that breast is better, and it's a pity - for me the legs are more tasty. Do you agree?
And you want to say that the fat is something bad? I have heard that it's vice versa, one should eat the fat instead of carbohydrates if he does not want to become obese.
It is a balance. Lots of fat and carbohydrate is not good in a diet. Did you check the HNS link?
 
  • #5
Spathi said:
I have already heard that breast is better, and it's a pity - for me the legs are more tasty. Do you agree?
And you want to say that the fat is something bad? I have heard that it's vice versa, one should eat the fat instead of carbohydrates if he does not want to become obese.
We need fat in our diet but there are different types. Look into HDL and LDL fat
 
  • #6
Spathi said:
for me the legs are more tasty. Do you agree?
Yes I like chicken leg, breast tends to be drier, less fat.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre and Klystron
  • #7
pinball1970 said:
It is a balance. Lots of fat and carbohydrate is not good in a diet. Did you check the HNS link?
I have look at the headings, most of them are ok, but the author also recommend to eat less saturated fat; are eggs the product with it?
As far as I know, in the past the medics recommended to eat less eags since they contain cholesterol, but now it is revealed that this is not true?
 
  • #8
pinball1970 said:
Tuna white fish low in fat, oily fish has some “good fats” like Omega 3 – Literally tonnes of information on this.
One thing that you must watch is eating too much top of the food chain fish like bigeye tuna, swordfish or orange roughy because of a high mercury content. Their consumption should be limited to once per month. Other fish with less mercury that can be heated more regularly (once a week) like blue fish, halibut, and Mahi-Mahi. Other fish low in mercury include trout, flounder and haddock may be eaten two to three times a week.

Some tuna are relatively safe to eat regularly but there are many types of varying levels of mercury. Light canned tuna is the lowest. See
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/mercury-in-tuna
for more details.
For Ahi lovers note that the term Ahi is used for both bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna, but bigeye has twice the mercury content of yellowfin,
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Klystron, russ_watters, pinball1970 and 1 other person
  • #9
gleem said:
One thing that you must watch is eating too much top of the food chain fish like bigeye tuna, swordfish or orange roughy because of a high mercury content. Their consumption should be limited to once per month. Other fish with less mercury that can be heated more regularly (once a week) like blue fish, halibut, and Mahi-Mahi. Other fish low in mercury include trout, flounder and haddock may be eaten two to three times a week.

Some tuna are relatively safe to eat regularly but there are many types of varying levels of mercury. Light canned tuna is the lowest. See
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/mercury-in-tuna
for more details.
For Ahi lovers note that the term Ahi is used for both bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna, but bigeye has twice the mercury content of yellowfin,
There is a list from most contaminated to least here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish
 
  • Like
Likes gleem
  • #10
Spathi said:
eags since they contain cholesterol, but now it is revealed that this is not true
We need cholesterol for normal metabolism. Again this is about balance, you can check government guidelines for how much you need/is too much.

If you are training, egg whites are a good source of protein without fat/Cholesterol

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/egg-whites-nutrition
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and Klystron
  • #11
A revealing anecdote concerning chicken:

My late wife was raised on a farm in southern Thailand, the original birth place of common agricultural chicken when the land featured massive tracts of forest. Her chickens ran mostly free eating a variety of bugs, small reptiles, seeds and feed left out by farmers. The colorful birds appeared smaller than typical American stock but strong and well proportioned.

When my relatives learned that I could cook, I was assigned a prized roll of prepping and chopping freshly harvested chicken meat for a variety of dishes such as larb ghy, spicy ground chicken with fresh mint and basil served with sweet rice. Breast meat had a yellow-gold hue, low water and fat content, and tasted ambrosial. The lower quarters and internal organs, traditionally barbequed, tasted fragrant with a mouth feel difficult to replicate off the farm.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes russ_watters, BillTre, 256bits and 1 other person
  • #12
Klystron said:
Her chickens ran mostly free eating a variety of bugs, small reptiles, seeds and feed left out by farmers
Free range vs the other kind.
Chickens are not particular from where they get their nutrition.
Free range also need to consume small stones to crush up the food intake in the gizzard.

I kind of doubt there is any info on the longevity and health versus exercize and diet of chickens, since most do not live to full potential in terms of life expectancy.
 
  • #13
pinball1970 said:
There is a list from most contaminated to least here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish
Another wise choice one can make is to eat prey, rather than predator.
By prey, I mean fish that spawn thousands or millions of offspring*. Sharks, for example, birth only one at time.

In the food chain, prey outnumber predators by hundreds or thousands. So eating predators can tip the food chain out of balance much more rapidly than can eating prey.

* a terrible yardstick, granted. Swordfish are predators but can lay millions of eggs.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #14
I hope the discussion will return to the topic of op. In the cited article of Singh, I found an information I didn't know before:

and 3) the protective effect of a very low meat intake seems to attenuate after the ninth decade.

This statistics seem strange for me, Previously, people became vegetarians because of the moral or religion ascept, they didn't want to "kill anymals". In last 3 decades, some statistics had been collected that the vegetarians live longer, and more and more people started becoming vegetarians to be heathy. So, in our time, when you see a vegetarian, it is very probable that he also does not smoke, does not dring alcohol, etc. So the trend now must be even more evident than before, but in reality it is vice versa. Why?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top