Is Turkey Considered A Red Meat? The Answer May Surprise You

Role of Lipids in Meat and Cardiovascular Disease

As cited by Kris-Etherton et al. (2014), Gilmore et al. (2011) conducted the only trial designed to test the hypothesis that ground beef high in MUFA would reduce cardiovascular risk factors, similar to plant-based MUFA, an effect that would not be seen with consumption of ground beef low in MUFA. Ground beef from both pasture- and grain-fed cattle was used, and total fat was matched at 24% of calories. Pasture-fed cattle contained higher concentrations of SFA, TFA, and α-linolenic acid [ALA, 18:3(n-3)] whereas the grain-fed cattle contained higher proportions of oleic acid [18:1(n-9)]. Their hypothesis was confirmed when the high-MUFA beef significantly increased HDL-C concentrations compared with the low-MUFA beef and significantly decreased the LDL-C:HDL-C ratio compared with the baseline. The authors note that the magnitude of the effect of high-MUFA ground beef in increasing HDL-C concentration (∼0.08 mmol/L) is comparable to that reported in a review by Kris-Etherton and Yu (1997) of the effects of high-oleic acid vegetable oils on HDL-C levels in human studies.

‘Red’ Meat vs. ‘White’ Meat– Health Controversies

The most recent meta-analysis by Wang et al. (2016) relating the risks of meat consumption to various causes of mortality included nine studies with 17 prospective cohorts from populations around the world. For the total population, the highest category of unprocessed “red” meat (beef, lamb, or pork) consumption was not associated with an increase in the risk of all-cause mortality relative risk (RR) = 1.05, and 95% confidence interval (CI)= 0.93–1.19), cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality (RR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.88–1.28), or cancer mortality (RR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.89–1.18). However, for the US population, each serving per day of unprocessed “red” meat was positively associated with a risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.12–1.19), CVD mortality (RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.13–1.26), and cancer mortality (RR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.07–1.17). The difference among populations may be explained, in part, by the relatively higher consumption of beef, pork, and lamb in the US compared with other populations, whereas higher fish intake may have helped reduce disease progression among the Asian populations. Additionally, it has been suggested that food preparation techniques in the US, such as the frying and grilling of meats, are associated with increased disease risk (Wang et al., 2016). Clinical trials examining the relationship between beef/lean beef consumption and cardiovascular disease risk factors indicate that, within the context of a heart-healthy diet, there is no adverse effect on major CVD risk factors and, in fact, a heart-healthy diet with lean beef has been shown to decrease major CVD risk factors. A meta-analysis of 124 research clinical trials on lipid and lipoprotein changes comparing beef against poultry or fish consumption found no significant differences; both decreased LDL-C similarly (Maki et al., 2012).

While “red” meat consumption has been linked epidemiologically to diabetes, stroke, cancer, morbidity, and mortality, white meat (poultry) and fish have not shown the same degree of association with these health conditions. Most epidemiological studies that have linked “red” meat consumption to these health concerns were primarily surveys based on observational recall of foods consumed, meta-analyses of cohort studies, assessments of food disappearance from nutrient databases (i.e., NHANES, USDA-ARS), and few case-control studies. Correlations derived from these studies may show a statistical association or an estimation of health risk from certain types of meat consumption but cannot prove causation. Observational studies such as these are helpful in generating hypotheses but are not suited for testing the hypothesis. Generally, observational studies with large numbers of respondents show weak, inconsistent, or no association with “red” and “white” meat (both unprocessed) consumption and related health risks.

Some inherent limitations of epidemiologic studies for assessing the dietary effects of meat and meat product consumption are listed below.

• Accuracy and precision of recall surveys are difficult to document using the categorical terms “red” and “white” meat
• Survey groupings may be too broad or inaccurate to study specific meat effects
• Food disappearance does not always equate to consumption (does not take into consideration food waste).
• Nutrient composition within a category may be too diverse to draw specific conclusions
• Meat cooking method/preparation may not be available but could have a direct effect on the diet (grilling, broiling, pan frying, deep-fat frying, etc. can alter compositional characteristics and/or generate undesirable compounds)
• Correlations cannot demonstrate causation but only estimate the degree of association.

Randomized controlled studies using animal models physiologically close to humans and human intervention trials that examine the effects of meat consumption by species and/or specific meat products are lacking and are needed to assess any health risks of association with consumption. As noted by Avkan (2015), in a recent study to assess “red” meat and colorectal cancer, “Correlation does not mean causation of course, (since) many different international lifestyle factors (other) than red meat intake can contribute to this result, so there [is] a great need for prospective case-control or cohort studies to test the hypothesis of the link between ‘red’ meat consumption and colorectal cancer (CRC) risk after this correlation study.”

Categorizing “red” and “white” meats in relation to health outcomes is quite often problematic. At the heart of many studies correlating meat consumption with health-related conditions is the manner in which different meats are grouped on surveys into “red,” “white,” or “processed” categories. The difficulty often comes when “red” and “white” meat items are grouped too broadly (grouping poultry and fish that differ compositionally) or categorized inappropriately (including further processed items containing approved ingredients only) with “red” muscle meats on a survey. This is further complicated when meta-analyses are used to assess meat consumption or disappearance data using broadly grouped categories that are not truly similar. Thus, results from these studies used to assess health risks or convey health recommendations (such as disease risk, morbidity, mortality, or dietary advice) may be too broad or generalized to accurately describe a specific meat or meat items relationship to diet and health. As an example, Sinha et al. (2009) assessed “red” and “white” meat intake to the mortality of 617,119 individuals using 24-h recalls based on a 124-item food frequency questionnaire and applying a dietary assessment of the meat items categorized. The following excerpt describes how meats were grouped. These authors categorized “red” meat intake was calculated using “all types of pork and beef – bacon, beef, cold cuts, ham, hamburger, hot dogs, liver, pork sausage, steak, and meats in foods such as pizza, chili, lasagna, and stew. “White” meat included chicken, turkey and fish and included poultry cold cuts, chicken mixtures, canned tuna, as well as low fat sausages and low-fat hot dogs made from poultry. Processed meat included bacon, red meat sausage, poultry sausage, luncheon meats (red and white meat), cold cuts (red and white meat), ham, regular hot dogs and low-fat hot dogs made from poultry. The components constituting red or white or processed meats overlap because both can include meats such as bacon, sausage, and ham, while processed meat also included smoked turkey and chicken. However, these meat groups are (were) not all used in the same models, thus they are not duplicated in any one analysis.” A 10-yr cohort follow-up was conducted to assess mortality of the subjects, and the final conclusion of Sinha et al. (2009) based on model predictions and correlations was that “red” and “processed” meat intakes, especially as part of a high-risk meat diet, were “associated with a modest increase in risk of total mortality, cancer, and CVD mortality in both men and women.” In contrast, they reported that high “white” meat intake and a low-risk meat diet were associated with a small decrease in total and cancer mortality.” A 10-yr cohort follow-up was conducted to assess mortality of the subjects, and the final conclusion of Sinha et al. (2009) based on model predictions and correlations was that “red” and “processed” meat intakes, especially as part of a high-risk meat diet, were “associated with a modest increase in risk of total mortality, cancer, and CVD mortality in both men and women.” In contrast, they reported that high “white” meat intake and a low-risk meat diet were associated with a small decrease in total and cancer mortality.”

Based on the somewhat confusing excerpt given above, it is apparent that the products grouped into “red” and “white” meat categories in this study were not the traditionally understood portioned cuts from beef and pork, and breast meat from chickens and turkey, but included further processed meats that varied dramatically in nutrient composition, addition of non-meat ingredients, and cooking method. It is also not known if the amounts consumed of each meat item in the 124-item food frequency were taken into account. Because multiple beef, pork, poultry, and fish meat items were included in the respective “red” and “white” groupings, attributing mortality outcomes to a traditional understanding of “red” or “white” categories may not be possible. This assessment of the research performed is not intended to be critical of the authors intent to identify dietary health risks; rather it is to show how inappropriate categorization or grouping of meat items can lead to difficulty in accurately assessing the true effects of portioned “red” (beef, pork, and lamb) and “white” (poultry and turkey breasts) meats on health outcomes.

In one of the largest meta-analyses of “red” (unprocessed), “processed”, and total meat consumption in relation to the development of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and diabetes mellitus, Micha et al. (2010) concluded that “processed” meats, but not “red” meats, were associated with a higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus. However, what is not known is the accuracy of the categorizations and groupings of meat and meat products in the original 17 cohort and three case-control studies used for the meta-analysis. Additionally, in a systematic review of 40 studies using animal models or cell cultures to assess “red” and “processed” meat consumption in relation to colorectal cancer risk, Turner and Lloyd (2017) found insufficient evidence to confirm a mechanistic link between the intake of “red” meat as part of a healthy dietary pattern and colorectal cancer risk. Most of the studies reviewed used levels of meat or meat components well in excess of those found in human diets, and semi-purified diets were used without the benefit of the additional compounds found in whole foods. They concluded that it was essential that better-designed studies be conducted using relevant concentrations of meat in model diets representative of those consumed by humans. This conclusion supports the need for definitive randomized controlled studies to assess the dietary effects of meat consumption that, in turn, could lead to sound dietary and policy recommendations.

RED MEAT: The Single BEST Food for Healing and Repair

FAQ

Is turkey healthier than red meat?

What meat is not red meat?

Is turkey considered white meat or red meat?

Which is healthier chicken or turkey?

What is the difference between Turkey and red meat?

Both turkey and chicken are poultry-based sources of protein. This means that their meat comes from birds. On the other hand, red meat is flesh from mammals. This includes beef — which comes from cows — and pork — which comes from pigs. Most diets strongly recommend prioritizing poultry and plant-based protein sources over red meat.

What are the effects of only eating red meat?

Red meat has more saturated fat, which is one of the factors responsible for raising cholesterol levels. Consecutively increases the risk of suffering from heart disease, development of hypertension and a possible heart attack. There is already a study linking the consumption of red meat with damage to the health of the intestine, mainly with the development of a condition called diverticulitis, an inflammation.

Is turkey meat red or white?

Is Turkey Meat White or Red? Red meat is the myoglobin-rich muscle meat of mammals, such as cows, pigs, goats, and sheep, while white meat is lower in myoglobin and lighter in color. White meat is known as the meat of poultry and fish. Turkey meat, being poultry, is naturally classified as white meat.

Is turkey meat healthier than red meat?

If turkey meat is classified as white meat, it will be considered to be a healthier option than red meat. This is because white meat is lower in fat and calories than red meat. However, if turkey meat is classified as red meat, it will be considered to be less healthy than white meat.