poultry Archives - Health Tips From The Professor

Does Meat Consumption Increase Disease Risk?

May 26, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is It Meat Or Something Else?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

We are told we should be consuming more protein. But where should we get our protein?

Meat is an obvious choice. But meat consumption is controversial. The arguments are intense.

There are those who claim that meat consumption, particularly red meat, increases our risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and many other diseases. Others claim that meat has been maligned. It doesn’t increase disease risk. We should eat more of it, not less.

The problem is that both sides are basing their claims on published clinical studies. Studies on meat consumption and disease risk are all over the map.

I have covered this controversy in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”. In attempting to make sense of the conflicting data I made the observation that studies showing meat consumption reduced disease risk tended to come from third world countries while studies showing meat consumption increased disease risk tended to come from high-income western countries.

So, my interest was peaked when I saw a very large study (K Papier et al, BMC Medicine,: 19:53, 2021) on meat consumption and disease risk in the UK.

How Was This Study Done?

The investigators used data from the UK Biobank Study, a study that recruited 503,317 young men and women throughout the UK between 2006 and 2010. Upon entry into the study participants completed questionnaires about physical data (height, weight, etc), biological data (blood sugar, cholesterol levels, etc.), and diet.

This particular study used data from a subset (474,985) participants who completed a 24-hour dietary recall questionnaire.

Participants were then linked to the National Health Service database to assess the first occurrence of the 25 leading non-cancerous causes of hospital admissions for each patient and followed for an average of 8 years.

Cancer admissions were excluded from this study because the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the WHO, has already classified red meat as a probable carcinogen and processed meat as a likely carcinogen.

Does Meat Consumption Increase Disease Risk?

The investigators looked at four distinct categories of meat consumption (total meat, red meat, processed meat, and poultry) and the risk of 25 common diseases (excluding cancer). In each case, they divided meat consumption into quartiles and compared the disease risk for those in the highest quartile to those in the lowest quartile.

For the sake of simplicity, I will only report the most significant disease risks (those with p ≤001).

Total Meat Consumption (Lowest quartile = 1.2 oz/d; Highest quartile = 4.1 oz/d):

Disease	Increased Risk
Heart Disease	29%
Stroke	24%
Diverticular Disease	29%
Colon Polyps	14%
Diabetes	85%

Red Meat Consumption (Lowest quartile = 0.2 oz/d; Highest quartile = 2.0 oz/d):

Disease	Increased Risk
Heart Disease	25%
Stroke	NS
Diverticular Disease	26%
Colon Polyps	11%
Diabetes	53%

Processed Meat Consumption (Lowest quartile = 0.15 oz/d; Highest quartile = 1.0 oz/d):

Disease	Increased Risk
Heart Disease	17%
Stroke	23%
Diverticular Disease	18%
Colon Polyps	11%
Diabetes	52%

Poultry Consumption (Lowest quartile = 1.2 oz/d; Highest quartile = 4.1 oz/d):

Disease	Increased Risk
Heart Disease	12%
Stroke	NS
Diverticular Disease	18%
Colon Polyps	11%
Diabetes	32%
GERD	16%
Gastritis	10%

My evaluation of the data is:

These differences are highly significant (p <001) and the study size was very large (~475,000 participants), so the increased risk is probably true for a high-income Western country like the UK.

- However, some of these differences are relatively small. It’s easy to understand how they might be missed in smaller studies.

- Even increased risk in the 25-30% range might disappear in studies that combine data from high-income countries and third world countries.

- With this perspective it is easy to understand why previous studies have been so confusing.

Because the investigators looked at the effect of each kind of meat separately, one can get a better idea of the relative contribution of each meat to various diseases [With, of course, the caveat that people who consume more red meat also tend to consume more processed meat and vice versa.] For example:

- Red meat appears to contribute more to heart disease risk than processed meat or poultry – possibly due to its high saturated fat and cholesterol content.

- Processed meat appears to contribute more to stroke risk than red meat or poultry – possibly due to added nitrates and other food additives.

- All meats appear to contribute to diverticular disease – possibly due to a change in gut bacteria because meats replace plant foods in the diet.

The increased risk of GERD and gastritis associated with poultry consumption was surprising, but the increased risk was small.

The authors concluded, “Our findings from this large prospective study of British adults show that meat consumption is associated with higher risks of several common conditions but a lower risk of iron deficiency anemia…Additional research is needed to evaluate whether these differences in risk reflect causal relationships, and if so what proportion [of these outcomes] could be prevented by decreasing meat consumption.”

Is It Meat Or Something Else?

Of course, the question, “Is it meat or something else in our diet that is causing the increased risk of disease?” One hint that something else might be contributing to disease risk came when the authors corrected the data for obesity. The results are shown below:

Total Meat Consumption Corrected For Obesity

Disease	Increased Risk	Corrected For Obesity
Heart Disease	29%	17%
Stroke	24%	22%
Diverticular Disease	29%	18%
Colon Polyps	14%	10%
Diabetes	85%	33%

Red Meat Consumption Corrected For Obesity

Disease	Increased Risk	Corrected For Obesity
Heart Disease	25%	16%
Stroke	NS	NS
Diverticular Disease	26%	17%
Colon Polyps	11%	8%
Diabetes	53%	21%

Processed Meat Consumption Corrected For Obesity

Disease	Increased Risk	Corrected For Obesity
Heart Disease	17%	9%
Stroke	23%	17%
Diverticular Disease	18%	17%
Colon Polyps	11%	8%
Diabetes	52%	24%

Poultry Consumption Corrected For Obesity

Disease	Increased Risk	Corrected For Obesity
Heart Disease	12%	8%
Stroke	NS	NS
Diverticular Disease	14%	10%
Colon Polyps	6%	7%
Diabetes	32%	14%
GERD	16%	17%
Gastritis	10%	12%

When corrected for obesity, the risk of:

Heart disease decreased by 33-47%.

Diverticular disease decreased by 23-38%.

Diabetes decreased by 54-61%.

But how do we interpret that? It would be easy to conclude that the influence of meat consumption on heart disease, diverticular disease, and diabetes is small. However, that’s not the real world. People aren’t meat eaters or overweight. In the real world, people are often meat eaters and overweight.

So, the important question to ask is why so many meat eaters are overweight.

It could simply be a question of calories. A serving of steak is around 680 calories, while a serving of beans is around 110 calories.

It could be what is eaten with the steak or beans. A medium baked potato with butter and sour cream adds 300-500 calories. A vegetable stir fry adds 170 calories.

It could be how we cook it. In our country over 50% of chicken we eat is fried. And to make matters worse, we often add French Fries and other highly processed foods to our fried chicken meal.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

This study shows that in a high-income western society like ours, meat consumption is likely to increase our risk of several diseases, For example:

Red meat is associated with increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and diverticular disease.

Processed meat is associated with increased risk of stroke, diabetes, and diverticular disease.

Poultry consumption is associated with increased risk of diabetes and digestive diseases.

All three kinds of meat are associated with obesity.

While it is easy to blame meat consumption for all our ills, it may be how we cook it and what we eat along with it.

Perhaps we should eat our meat the way they do in Third World countries. Rather than eating it as a main course, perhaps we should use it as flavoring for a vegetable stir fry or a lentil stew.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the association of meat consumption with disease risk in the UK. It found that:

Red meat is associated with increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and diverticular disease.

Processed meat is associated with increased risk of stroke, diabetes, and diverticular disease.

Poultry consumption is associated with increased risk of diabetes and digestive diseases.

All three kinds of meat are associated with obesity.

For more information on this study and what it means for you, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

____________________________________________________________________________

My posts and “Health Tips From the Professor” articles carefully avoid claims about any brand of supplement or manufacturer of supplements. However, I am often asked by representatives of supplement companies if they can share them with their customers.

My answer is, “Yes, as long as you share only the article without any additions or alterations. In particular, you should avoid adding any mention of your company or your company’s products. If you were to do that, you could be making what the FTC and FDA consider a “misleading health claim” that could result in legal action against you and the company you represent.

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

______________________________________________________________________

About The Author

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years. Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading Biochemistry textbooks for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 54 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Will Processed Meat Kill You?

May 5, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Is The Truth About Meat?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Vegans will tell you that any meat is bad for you. Keto enthusiasts haven’t found a meat they don’t like. To them grains and most fruits and vegetables are the problem.

But what about those of us who aren’t at either extreme? Which meat, if any, should be part of a healthy diet? And how much of them should we eat?

For years the paradigm had been clear:

Fish was best, especially fish rich in omega-3s. They were good for your heart and your brain. And some studies suggested that high intake of omega-3-rich fish might help you live longer.

Poultry and other white meats were neutral.

Red meat was probably bad for you. It was high in saturated fat and cholesterol, and some studies linked it to an increased risk of heart disease. Plus, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the WHO, listed it as a probable carcinogen. [Note: Recent studies have questioned concerns about red meat. I will discuss this below.]

Processed meats were considered a “no-no” The IARC listed processed meat as a definite carcinogen for humans based on studies linking it to colon, stomach, lung, and pancreatic cancers. It is also linked to an increased risk of heart disease.

However, most of these studies were done in the United States. And our diet is very different from that of many other countries.

That’s why a recent study (R Iqbal et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 114:1049-1058, 2021) caught my eye. The study was designed to measure the association between unprocessed red meat & poultry and processed meat intake with the risk both mortality and major cardiovascular disease with cancer as a secondary end point. And the study used data from 21 countries around the world except the United States.

How Was This Study Done?

The authors used data from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. The study is a large-scale (164,007 individuals), prospective (meaning it follows the individuals over time rather than taking measurements from them at a single time) study. The individuals in the study were aged 35-70 years and were followed for an average of 9.5 years.

The individuals came from 21 low-, middle-, and high-income countries.

The low-income countries included Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe.

The middle-income countries included Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia, Iran, Poland, South Africa, and Turkey.

The high-income countries included Canada, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates. [Note: The United States was not included in the study.]

At the beginning of the study and at 3, 6, and 9 years the following data were collected from everyone enrolled in the study.

Demographic information (age, sex, location, education, wealth index, and smoking status).
Lifestyle information (diet and physical activity).
Health history.
Medication use.
Cardiovascular events and mortality.

Will Processed Meat Kill You?

The authors compared high intake of processed meats (5 ounces per week, the equivalent of two sausages/week) with zero intake of processed meats. They reported that high intake of processed meats increased the risk of:

Mortality by 51%.
Major cardiovascular disease by 46%.
Non-cardiovascular mortality by 50%
Cancer by 84%.
Heart attack by 62%.
Stroke by 56%.

Furthermore, even as little as 1.5 ounces of processed meat per week significantly increased the risk of mortality.

For red meat and poultry, the authors compared high intake (9 ounces per week) with low intake (2 ounces per week). For both red meat and poultry they did not find any association between high weekly intake and any of the health outcomes.

[I would note however, that many Americans consume 4 ounces of chicken or an 8-ounce steak at dinner – that’s one meal on one day. The corresponding weekly intake would be 28 ounces of chicken or 56 ounces of red meat. That’s significantly higher than the highest weekly intake used in this study.]

The authors concluded, “We observed no significant association between the consumption of unprocessed red meat and poultry intake and health outcomes. And higher intake of processed meat was associated with higher risks of mortality and cardiovascular disease. These findings may indicate that limiting the intake of processed meat should be encouraged.”

In my opinion, there are so many studies linking the consumption of processed meat with heart disease, cancer, and premature death that the last sentence of their conclusion should have said, “These findings unambiguously confirm that limiting the intake of processed meats should be encouraged.”

What Is The Truth About Meat?

Red Meat:

Yes, there is a lot of confusion about red meat. Many studies, like this one, find no adverse health effects associated with red meat consumption. That has led many experts to conclude that the dangers of red meat have been greatly exaggerated.

I think we should dig a little deeper. Most of the studies showing that red meat consumption increases the risk of heart disease, cancer, and mortality have been done in this country. So, perhaps we should be asking what is different about red meat consumption in our country.

There are several factors to consider:

Cooking Methods: The authors of this article pointed out that we often grill our meat at high temperatures which causes the formation of cancer-causing chemicals, while many of the countries in the PURE database stew their red meat at much lower temperatures.

Diet Context: As I have explained in a previous article of Health Tips From the Professor, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains are the antidotes to the cancer-causing chemicals formed when we cook red meat. And they bind to cholesterol in the intestine and flush it out of the body. Finally, they dilute the saturated fat in red meat with polyunsaturated fats, which helps create a healthier balance of fats.

In this country we often pair our steaks with French fries or a baked potato loaded with butter and sour cream. However, in low- and middle-income countries red meat is an expensive luxury and is often used as a garnish to dishes containing lots of vegetables and whole grains.

Amount Consumed: As a mentioned above, the amount of red meat most Americans consume in a week far exceeds the highest weekly intake of red meat in this study. The highest weekly consumption of red meat in this study is more consistent with using red meat as a garnish than as a main course.

Poultry:

For poultry, there is no confusion. Studies done in this country also find no association between poultry consumption and cardiovascular disease, cancer, or mortality. That may be due to a healthier fat profile and the ways in which poultry is usually cooked.

Processed Meat:

For processed meat, there is also no confusion. Virtually every published study from across the world agrees that it increases the risk of cancer, heart disease, and premature death. And the effect is not trivial. This study suggests that just 2 sausages a week is enough to increase your risk of premature death by 50%! So, the answer to the question, “Will processed meat kill you?” appears to be, “Yes”.

The authors of this article pointed out that the saturated fat and cholesterol in processed meat and red meat were very similar. They didn’t mention it, but the cooking techniques are also similar. So, neither of these explain why processed meat is so bad for us.

However, the amounts of preservatives and food additives in processed and unprocessed meats differ greatly. Based on this, the authors of the study and many other experts postulate that it is the preservatives and food additives that are responsible for the health risks of processed meats.

What Does this Mean For You?

This study agrees with many other studies showing that processed meats are bad for us. The authors recommend limiting your intake of processed meats.

However, their data show that as little as two strips of bacon, one hot dog, or half a large sausage per week significantly increases your risk of heart disease, cancer, and premature death. Based on that, my advice would be to avoid processed meats as much as possible.

As I described above, most experts feel that it is the preservatives and food additives that are responsible for the health risks associated with processed meats.

Some studies suggest that nitrates in processed meats may be the main culprit. Based on that belief, some food companies are offering nitrate-free processed meats as a healthier option.

However, there still may be some additives in nitrate-free processed meats (read the label carefully), and we have no clinical studies showing that the nitrate-free processed meats in the marketplace are good for us.

Red meat is more confusing. This study and others suggest it poses no health hazards. And many experts are telling you that the warnings about consuming red meat were overblown. They are telling you that red meat is good for you.

However, some studies suggest that red meat increases your risk of heart disease, cancer and premature death. When you examine the data behind the studies, I think that better advice would be that red meat can be good for you or bad for you depending on three factors:

Portion size: We should think of red meat as a garnish rather than a main course – 3-4 ounces is a healthy portion size. 8-12 ounces may be too much.
Cooking method: Many of the bad things associated with red meat are the result of high temperature cooking, especially over a flame or on a grill. Choose low temperature cooking methods whenever possible.
Diet context: Whole fruits, vegetables and whole grains are the antidotes to all the bad things associated with red meat. 3-4 ounces of red meat in a vegetable stir fry or green salad is likely to be much better for you than an 8-ounce steak with French fries.

Also, red meat already has more than enough saturated fat and cholesterol. Adding foods or sauces high in fat and cholesterol may overload the body’s ability to safely process them. But adding vegetables or vegetable oils helps to restore a better balance between good and bad fats.

Finally, this and other studies agree that white meat is healthy. My only advice is:

Avoid white meat that has been fried (especially by fast food restaurants that only change their oil every 20,000 miles) or cooked with fatty sauces.
Think of the whole diet rather than just the protein source. White meat will be the healthiest as part of a whole food, primarily plant-based diet.

The Bottom Line

A recent study reported that eating as 5 ounces of processed foods per week increases your risk of heart disease, cancer, and premature death by 50%. That is equivalent to two sausages per week!) The authors of the study recommended that you limit your intake of processed meats.

However, the study showed that even as little as 1.5 ounces (2 strips of bacon, one hot dog, or half of a large sausage) per week significantly increases your risk of all three. Based on that data, my recommendation is to consider avoiding processed meat altogether.

The study reported that unprocessed red and white meat are not associated with increased health risks. I put those findings into the context of other published studies on the topic. I discuss my recommendations for unprocessed red and white meat in the article above.

For more information on this study and what it means for you, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

____________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

_____________________________________________________________________

About The Author

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Could What You Eat Save The Planet?

April 21, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Eating For A Healthy Planet

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Earth Day is tomorrow. So, it is time for my annual reminder that what you eat affects a lot more than just your health. It also affects the health of our planet. Once again, it’s time to ask yourself, “Could what you eat save the planet?

This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019) serves as a dire warning of what will happen if we don’t change our ways.

The commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

Are they good for us?

Are they good for the planet?

Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment?

The commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose-lose diet”. It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win-win diet”. It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet”.

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about our environment…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

How Was The Study Done?

The publication (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019) was the report of the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. This Commission convened 30 of the top experts from across the globe to prepare a science-based evaluation of the effect of diet on both health and sustainable food production through the year 2050. The Commission included world class experts on healthy diets, agricultural methods, climate change, and earth sciences. The Commission reviewed 356 published studies in preparing their report.

Can The Foods You Eat Affect The Health Of Our Planet?

When they looked at the effect of food production on the environment, the Commission concluded:

“Strong evidence indicates that food production is among the largest drivers of global environmental change.” Specifically, the commission reported:

- Agriculture occupies 40% of global land (58% of that is for pasture use).

- Food production is responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 70% of freshwater use.

- Conversion of natural ecosystems to croplands and pastures is the largest factor causing species to be threatened with extinction. Specifically, 80% of extinction threats to mammals and bird species are due to agricultural practices.

- Overuse and misuse of nitrogen and phosphorous in fertilizers causes eutrophication. In case you are wondering, eutrophication is defined as the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients (such as phosphates from commercial fertilizer) that stimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plant life, usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen. This creates dead zones in lakes and coastal regions where fish and other marine organisms cannot survive.

- About 60% of world fish stocks are fully fished and more than 30% are overfished. Because of this, catch by global marine fisheries has been declining since 1996.

“Reaching the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming…is not possible by only decarbonizing the global energy systems. Transformation to healthy diets from sustainable food systems is essential to achieving the Paris Agreement.”

The world’s population is expected to increase to 10 billion by 2050. The current system of food production is unsustainable.

When they looked at the effect of the foods we eat on the environment, the Commission concluded:

Beef and lamb are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and land use.

- The concern about land use is obvious because of the large amount of pastureland required to raise cattle and sheep.

- The concern about greenhouse gas emissions is because cattle and sheep are ruminants. They not only breathe out CO₂, but they also release methane into the atmosphere from fermentation in their rumens of the food they eat. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and it persists in the atmosphere 25 times longer than CO₂.

The single most important thing we can do as individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to eat less beef and lamb. [Note: grass fed cattle produce more greenhouse gas emissions than cattle raised on corn because they require 3 years to bring to market rather than 2 years.]

- In contrast, plant crops reduce greenhouse gas emissions by removing CO₂ from the atmosphere.

In terms of energy use beef, lamb, pork, chicken, dairy, and eggs all require much more energy to produce than any of the plant foods.

In terms of eutrophication of our lakes and oceans, beef, lamb, and pork all cause much more eutrophication than any plant food. Dairy and eggs cause more eutrophication than any plant food except fruits.

Eating For A Healthy Planet

In the words of the Commission: “[The Planetary Diet] largely consists of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and unsaturated oils. It includes a low to moderate amount of seafood, poultry, and eggs. It includes no or a very low amount of red meat, processed meat, sugar, refined grains, and starchy vegetables.”

When described in that fashion it sounds very much like other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable. Here is a more detailed description of the diet:

It starts with a vegetarian diet. Vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, soy foods, and whole grains are the foundation of the diet.

It allows the option of adding one serving of dairy a day (It turns out that cows produce much less greenhouse emissions per serving of dairy than per serving of beef. That’s because cows take several years to mature before they can be converted to meat, and they are emitting greenhouse gases the entire time).

It allows the option of adding one 3 oz serving of fish or poultry or one egg per day.

It allows the option of swapping seafood, poultry, or egg for a 3 oz serving of red meat no more than once a week. If you want a 12 oz steak, that would be no more than once a month.

This is obviously very different from the way most Americans currently eat. According to the Commission:

“This would require greater than 50% reduction in consumption of unhealthy foods, such as red meat and sugar, and greater than 100% increase in the consumption of healthy foods, such as nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes”.

“In addition to the benefits for the environment, “dietary changes from current diets to healthy diets are likely to substantially benefit human health, averting about 10.8-11.6 million deaths per year globally.”

What Did The Commission Recommend About Food Production?

In addition to changes in our diets, the Commission also recommended several changes in the way food is produced. Here are a few of them.

1) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel used to transport food to market.

2) Reduce food losses and waste by at least 50%.

3) Make radical improvements in the efficiency of fertilizer and water use. In terms of fertilizer, the change would be two-fold:

In developed countries, reduce fertilizer use and put in place systems to capture runoff and recycle the phosphorous.

In third world countries, make fertilizer more available so that crop yields can be increased, something the Commission refer to as eliminating the “yield gap” between third world and developed countries.

Stop the expansion of new agricultural land use into natural ecosystems and put in place policies aimed at restoring and re-foresting degraded land.

Manage the world’s oceans effectively to ensure that fish stocks are used responsibly and global aquaculture (fish farm) production is expanded sustainability.

What we can do: While most of these are government level policies, we can contribute to the first three by reducing personal food waste and purchasing organic produce locally whenever possible.

Could What You Eat Save The Planet?

The short answer is, “Yes, what we eat can go a long way towards protecting the health of our planet.”

If you are a vegan, you are probably asking why the Commission did not recommend a completely plant-based diet. The answer is that a vegan diet is perfect for the health of our planet. However, the Commission wanted to make a diet that was as consumer friendly as possible and still meet their goals of a healthy, environmentally friendly, and sustainable diet.

If you are eating a typical American diet or one of the fad diets that encourage meat consumption, you are probably wondering how you can ever make such drastic changes to your diet. The answer is “one step at a time”. If you have read the Forward to my books “Slaying The Food Myths” or “Slaying the Supplement Myths”, you know that my wife and I did not change our diet overnight. Our diet evolved to something very close to the Planetary Diet over a period of years.

The Commission also purposely designed the Planetary Diet so that you “never have to say never” to your favorite foods. Three ounces of red meat a week does not sound like much, but it allows you a juicy steak once a month.

Sometimes you just need to develop a new mindset. As I shared in my books, my father prided himself on grilling the perfect steak. I love steaks, but I decided to set a few parameters. I don’t waste my red meat calories on anything besides filet mignon at a fine restaurant. It must be a special occasion, and someone else must be buying. That limits it to 2-3 times a year. I still get to enjoy good steak on occasion, and I stay well within the parameters of the Planetary diet.

Develop your strategy for enjoying some of your favorite foods within the parameters of the Planetary Diet and have fun with it.

The Bottom Line

Could what you eat save the planet? This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report serves as a dire warning of what will happen to us and our planet if we don’t change our ways.

The Commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

Are they good for us?

Are they good for the planet?

Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The Commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose-lose diet”. It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win-win diet”. It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And, it is sustainable.

The Planetary Diet is similar to other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable (for details, read the article above).

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about global warming…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

For more details read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

______________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

________________________________________________________________________

About The Author

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Does Meat Increase Diabetes Risk?

March 9, 2026 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Why Does Meat Increase Diabetes Risk?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

The statistics for type 2 diabetes are alarming. In the United States:

38.1 million adults (15% of the adult population) had diabetes in 2021, with 95% of them having type 2 diabetes.

- 8.7 million of those adults were unaware they had diabetes.

- If current trends continue, by 2030 the number of adults with diabetes is projected to increase by 54% to around 55 million.

Another 96 million Americans (33% of the population) have pre-diabetes. Unless they change their diet and lifestyle, most of them are destined to progress to type 2 diabetes in the next few years.

Diabetes is the eight leading cause of death in this country.

The costs associated with diabetes in the United States are currently around $410 billion and are projected to increase to around $622 billion by 2030.

The statistics are not much different worldwide:

Type 2 diabetes currently affects more than 500 million people worldwide and is expected to double by 2050.

Diabetes is also the 8^th leading cause of death worldwide.

This is a major concern because diabetes dramatically increases the risk of:

Heart disease and stroke.
Certain types of cancer.
Painful neuropathies.
Vision loss and blindness.
Cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease.

Just to name a few. Diabetes affects your quality of life, and it can shorten your lifespan by several years.

So, you are probably wondering what you can do to decrease your risk of developing type 2 diabetes. There are lots of fad diets (low carb, low fat, low glycemic, high fiber, Paleo, Keto, etc.), but the weight of evidence is that your best bet for decreasing the risk of developing diabetes is a healthy diet that:

Is primarily plant-based.
Consists mostly of unprocessed or minimally processed foods.
Emphasizes healthy fats such as monounsaturated and omega-3 fats.
Includes lots of fruits and vegetables.
Emphasizes whole rather than refined grains.
Includes plant protein sources like beans, nuts, and seeds.
Has a low caloric density (which it will if you follow the guidelines above), so you can lose weight slowly and naturally.

But what about meat? Here the data are less clear. Several studies have suggested that eating red and processed meat increases your risk of type-2 diabetes. Studies on poultry are mixed with some studies suggesting they increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, and other studies suggesting they have no effect.

Unfortunately, the data from the previous studies were inconsistent, in part because the methods used to collect and analyze the data varied widely from study to study. In addition, the studies were primarily performed in the United States and Europe, so it was unclear whether the correlation between meat consumption and type 2 diabetes was universal, or whether it was restricted to western countries.

With this in mind, the authors of the current study (C Li et al, The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, 12: 619-630, 2024) decided to perform a much more comprehensive study by combining studies from all across the world that used similar methodologies.

How Was This Study Done?

This study was a meta-analysis of data obtained from the InterConnect project. The InterConnect project is registry of more than 200 studies from around the world. The investigators chose 31 studies with a total of 1,966,444 individuals from 20 countries for this meta-analysis based on the following criteria:

Participants in the studies were adults between 40 and 60 years old.

Participants were excluded from the study if they already had type 2 diabetes.

The diets of participants in the studies were assessed by having the participants fill out standardized dietary assessment forms at the beginning of the study.

Participants were followed for an average of 10 years (7-15 years) to see how many developed a newly diagnosed case of type 2 diabetes. During this time 10,271 participants in these studies developed type 2 diabetes.

The correlation between 3 types of meat (processed meat, red meat, and poultry) and type 2 diabetes was adjusted for other factors that affect the risk of diabetes (e.g., age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, drinking, physical activity, obesity, and family history of type 2 diabetes)

Does Meat Increase Diabetes Risk?

The results of this meta-analysis were:

There was a log-linear (greater than linear) dose-response correlation without any obvious threshold or ceiling effect with the risk of developing type-2 diabetes for all three meats tested in this study.

For processed meat each 50-gram increase (equivalent to 4 slices of smoked ham) increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 15%.

For unprocessed red meat each 100-gram increase (equivalent to 3.5 ounces of steak) increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 10%.

For poultry each 100-gram increase (equivalent to 3.5 ounces of chicken) increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 8%. However, after correcting for other diet and lifestyle factors that increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, the effect of poultry on diabetes risk was non-significant.

When they looked at the effect of replacing one type of meat with another:

Replacing 50 grams of processed meat with 100 grams of unprocessed red meat decreased the risk of diabetes by 7%.

Replacing 50 grams of processed meat with 100 grams of poultry decreased the risk of diabetes by 10%.

I should note that previous studies have shown that replacing either processed meat or unprocessed red meat with vegetable protein foods (beans, nuts, and seeds) significantly decreases the risk of developing diabetes.

When they looked at different regions of the world:

The effect of both processed and unprocessed red meat on type 2 diabetes risk was seen in America, Europe, Western Pacific regions, and east Asia.

However, no effect of either unprocessed or processed red meat on type 2 diabetes risk was seen in the Eastern Mediterranean and South Asia.

The authors concluded, “The consumption of meat, particularly processed and unprocessed red meat, is a risk factor for developing type 2 diabetes across populations. These findings highlight the importance of reducing meat consumption for public health and should inform dietary guidelines.”

Why Does Meat Increase Diabetes Risk?

This study supports and strengthens previous studies suggesting that we should add red and processed meats to the list of risk factors for developing type 2 diabetes. However, unless you are a vegan, the idea of giving up all red and processed meat is probably a non-starter.

Instead, let’s ask why red and processed meats increase diabetes risk. Is it the meat itself, or something else that triggers the increase in the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Is it:

#1: Guilt By Association: Diets high in meats are also high in saturated fats, which increase the risk of diabetes.

#2: Guilt By Omission: Diets high in meats are often low in fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds – all healthy foods that lower diabetes risk.

#3: Guilt By Addition: Processed meats contain additives that can increase the risk of developing diabetes. For example, nitrates or nitrites are often added as preservatives. But they can be converted in the gut to N-nitroso compounds which increase inflammation, which in turn increases the risk of developing diabetes.

#4: Guilt By Cooking: High temperature grilling and frying creates compounds that create oxidative stress, which can increase the risk of developing diabetes.

#5: Guilt By Microbiome: The microbiome (gut bacteria) of heavy meat eaters is very different from the microbiome of people who eat a more plant-based diet. If a meat eater consumes a steak, their gut bacteria convert L-carnitine in the meat to a toxic compound called trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO). However, if you were able to convince a vegan to eat the same steak, that wouldn’t happen.

#6: Guilt By Diet Context: The fact that there was no association between red and processed meat and diabetes in Mediterranean and South Asian regions gives us an important clue. The bad effects of red and processed meats are influenced by the context of the overall diet. What do the cuisines of the Mediterranean and South Asian regions have in common? They are both primarily whole food, plant-based cuisines.

I have discussed each of these mechanisms in more detail in an article in a recent edition of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

I also discussed ways to reduce the risk of each of these mechanisms, but if you don’t want to read the article,here is a spoiler alert:

Plant foods are the antidotes for the bad things associated with red and processed meats.

We should think of meat as a garnish for a primarily plant-based meal rather than a main course with a baked potato or fries as a garnish.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the effects various meats on the risk of developing type 2 diabetes worldwide. The study found:

For processed meat each 50-gram increase (equivalent to 4 slices of smoked ham) increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 15%.

For unprocessed red meat each 100-gram increase (equivalent to 3.5 ounces of steak) increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 10%.

The effect of poultry on diabetes risk was non-significant.

When they looked at the effect of replacing one type of meat with another:

Replacing 50 grams of processed meat with 100 grams of unprocessed red meat decreased the risk of diabetes by 7%.

Replacing 50 grams of processed meat with 100 grams of poultry decreased the risk of diabetes by 10%.

I should note that previous studies have shown that replacing either processed meat or unprocessed red meat with vegetable protein foods (beans, nuts, and seeds) significantly decreases the risk of developing diabetes.

For more details on this study, why meats increase diabetes risk, and what this study means for you, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

_____________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

________________________________________________________________________

About The Author

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

For the past 53 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Which Diet Is Best For Your Heart?

June 29, 2021 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Why Are Dietary Studies So Confusing?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

You are concerned about your heart.

Perhaps it is because of genetics. Everyone on one side of your family tree had their first heart attack in their mid-forties.

Perhaps it is because your doctor has warned you that your heart is a ticking time bomb. Unless you make some drastic changes, you will die of a heart attack in the near future.

Perhaps you already have some symptoms of heart disease, and you are scared.

You want to make some changes. You want to protect your heart. What should you do?

The short answer is that a holistic approach is best, and I will share the American Heart Association recommendations below. But let’s start by asking what you should eat. There are two important questions:

#1: Which diet is best for your heart?

A whole food vegan diet, the Mediterranean diet, and the DASH diet are all strong contenders for the best heart healthy diet.

But there are many other diets that claim to be heart healthy. Some enthusiasts even claim the Paleo and keto diets are heart healthy.

The problem is that few studies have compared these diets against each other. That makes it difficult to settle the question of which diet is best for your heart.

#2: Which protein source is best for your heart – plant protein, fish, poultry, or red meat?

Plant and fish protein are both strong contenders for the most heart healthy protein.

Poultry has the reputation of being more heart healthy than red meat. But this has become controversial. Some recent studies suggest poultry is no better than red meat in terms of heart health.

Fortunately, a recent study (F Petermann-Rocha et al, European Heart Journal, 42: 1136-1143, 2021) has made this comparison. It compared vegetarians, fish eaters, poultry eaters, and red meat eaters for the risk of developing heart disease.

How Was This Study Done?

This study made use of data from the UK Biobank program. The UK Biobank program recruited over 500,000 participants (ages 37-73) from England, Wales, and Scotland between 2006 and 2010 and followed them for an average of 8.5 years.

At entry into the program, each participant filled out a touchscreen questionnaire, had physical measurements taken, and provided biological samples.

Dietary intake was assessed based on the touchscreen questionnaire and the average of 5 24-hour dietary recalls. The participants were divided into four groups based on this dietary analysis:

Vegetarians (All participants in the study consumed cheese and eggs, so this group would more accurately be described as lacto-ovo-vegetarians).

Fish eaters.

Poultry eaters.

Red meat eaters.

Over the next ~8.5 years, each group was compared with respect to the following heart health parameters:

Risk of developing cardiovascular disease (all diseases of the circulatory system).

Risk of developing ischemic heart disease (lack of sufficient blood flow to the heart. The most common symptom of ischemic heart disease is angina).

Risk of having a myocardial infarction (commonly referred to as a heart attack).

Risk of having a stroke.

Risk of developing heart failure.

Which Diet Is Best For Your Heart?

The study compared vegetarians, fish eaters, and poultry eaters with red meat eaters with respect to each of the heart disease parameters listed above. The results were:

When fish eaters were compared with meat eaters, they had:

- 7% lower risk of cardiovascular diseases of all types.

- 21% lower risk of ischemic heart disease (angina).

- 30% lower risk of myocardial infarction (heart attack).

- 21% lower risk of stroke.

- 22% lower risk of heart failure.

When vegetarians were compared with meat eaters, they had:

- 9% lower risk of cardiovascular diseases of all types.

- Lower, but statistically non-significant, risk of other heart disease parameters.

When poultry eaters were compared with meat eaters there were no significant differences in heart disease outcomes.

The authors concluded, “Eating fish rather than meat or poultry was associated with a lower risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes…supporting its role as a healthy diet that should be encouraged. Vegetarianism was only associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease incidence.”

Why Are Dietary Studies So Confusing?

So, you are probably thinking, “Are diets with fish protein really more heart healthy than diets with plant protein?”

Fish have a lot going for them. They are an excellent source of heart healthy omega-3 fats. And, when substituted for red meat protein, they decrease intake of saturated fats.”

But plant protein has a lot going for it as well. Numerous studies have shown that vegetarian diets are more heart healthy than the typical American diet. And only plant-based diets have been shown to reverse atherosclerosis.

So, why are dietary studies so confusing? The problem is that diets are complex. They have many moving parts. When we focus on one aspect of a diet, we are ignoring the rest of the diet. The food we have focused on may be healthy. But if it is paired with unhealthy foods, the overall diet can still be unhealthy.

The current study is a perfect example of that principle:

The participants represented a cross section of the British population. All the “diets” were high in sugar, sugary drinks, saturated fat, and processed meals bought from the supermarket. None of them were optimal.

In addition to consuming cheese and eggs, “vegetarians” consumed more crisps, slices of pizza, and smoothie drinks than meat-eaters. [In case you were wondering, the English refer to small thin salty snacks like potato chips as crisps. They reserve the term chips for what we call French Fries.]

“Vegetarians” also consumed a lot of highly processed vegetarian alternatives designed to taste like other meat products.

On the other hand, fish eaters consumed more fruits and vegetables than meat-eaters. It wasn’t just the fish that made this diet more heart healthy.

In other words, the “vegetarian diet” in this study was not nearly as healthy as the whole food vegetarian diets that have previously been shown to be heart healthy. And the “fish-eaters diet” was healthier than the “meat-eaters diet” because of both the fish and the extra fruits and vegetables these people were consuming.

In the words of the authors, “…As a group, vegetarians consumed more unhealthy foods, such as crisps, than meat eaters. Therefore, vegetarians should not be considered a homogeneous group, and avoidance of meat will not be sufficient to reduce health risk if the overall diet is not healthy.”

My summary:

Whole food plant-based diets (the true definition of vegetarianism) are very heart healthy. [Note: The diet in this study was lacto-ovo-vegetarian rather than a true vegetarian diet. However, recent studies have suggested that addition of small amounts of dairy and eggs to a vegetarian diet may make them more heart healthy rather than less heart healthy.]

Primarily plant-based diets with fish as the main protein source (otherwise known as pescatarian diets) are also very heart healthy.

If you want a healthy heart, choose the one that best fits your preferences and your lifestyle.

A Holistic Approach: The American Heart Association Recommendations

If you smoke, stop.

Choose good nutrition.

- Choose a diet that emphasizes vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low-fat dairy products, poultry, fish, legumes, non-tropical vegetable oils, and nuts.

- Choose a diet that limits sweets, sugar-sweetened beverages, and red meats.

- Reduce high blood cholesterol and triglycerides.

- Reduce your intake of saturated fat, trans fat and cholesterol.

Lower High Blood Pressure.

Be physically active every day.

- Aim for at least 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity physical activity per week.

Aim for a healthy weight.

Manage diabetes.

Reduce stress.

Limit alcohol.

Have a regular physical checkup.

The Bottom Line

A recent study in the United Kingdom compared vegetarians, fish eaters, poultry eaters, and red meat eaters for the risk of developing heart disease and the risk of dying from heart disease. The results were:

When fish eaters were compared with meat eaters, they had:

- 7% lower risk of cardiovascular diseases of all types.

- 21% lower risk of ischemic heart disease (angina).

- 30% lower risk of myocardial infarction (heart attack).

- 21% lower risk of stroke.

- 22% lower risk of heart failure.

When vegetarians were compared with meat eaters, they had:

- 9% lower risk of cardiovascular diseases of all types.

- Lower, but statistically non-significant, risk of other heart disease parameters.

When poultry eaters were compared with meat eaters there were no significant differences in heart disease outcomes.

However, the “vegetarian diet” in this study was not nearly as healthy as the whole food vegetarian diets that have previously been shown to be heart healthy. And the “fish-eaters diet” was healthier than the “meat-eaters diet” because of both the fish and the extra fruits and vegetables this group of people were consuming.

In the words of the authors, “…As a group, vegetarians consumed more unhealthy foods, such as crisps [potato chips], than meat eaters. Therefore, vegetarians should not be considered a homogeneous group, and avoidance of meat will not be sufficient to reduce health risk if the overall diet is not healthy.”

My summary:

Whole food plant-based diets (the true definition of vegetarianism) are very heart healthy.

Primarily plant-based diets with fish as the main protein source (otherwise known as pescatarian diets) are also very heart healthy.

If you want a healthy heart, choose the one that best fits your preferences and your lifestyle.

For more details about this study, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.