Is Pork Worse Than Beef? Comparing Nutrition and Health Risks

1Nutritional Physiology Research Centre, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471 Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia; E-Mails: ua. ude. asinu@reyd. etak (K. A. D. ); ua. ude. asinu. liamym@sivad. yentruoc (C. R. D. ); ua. ude. asinu@setaoc. nosila (A. M. C. ); ua. ude. asinu@yelkcub. noj (J. D. B. )Find articles by.

2The University of South Australia’s School of Nursing and Midwifery is located at GPO Box 2471 Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia. You can reach them by email at ua ude. asinu@rekrap. arabrabFind articles by.

Pork and beef are both popular types of red meat that offer protein, vitamins, and minerals. But when it comes to nutrition and health, is pork actually worse for you than beef? There are some key differences to consider.

Nutritional Profile of Pork vs Beef

While pork and beef have some nutritional similarities beef tends to be higher in certain nutrients

Calories – Beef contains more calories per serving than pork. A 3.5 oz serving of lean beef has 254 calories while the same amount of pork loin has 166 calories.
Saturated Fat – Beef is higher in saturated fat and overall fat content. Pork has less marbling and more unsaturated fats.
Cholesterol – Beef contains 71 mg cholesterol per serving compared to 64 mg in pork.
Iron – Beef provides 1.94 mg iron which is over 3 times the 0.53 mg in pork. Iron carries oxygen and supports energy.
Zinc – With 4.18 mg of zinc per serving, beef supplies more than double the 1.73 mg in pork. Zinc aids immunity.
B Vitamins – Beef has higher levels of B12, niacin, and vitamin K than pork. These assist energy metabolism.

So when it comes to calories, fat, and certain vitamins and minerals like iron, zinc, and B12, beef packs more in per serving than pork.

Comparing Health Risks of Pork and Beef

In addition to nutrition profiles, the potential health risks associated with pork and beef are important to weigh.

Potential Risks of Pork

Some concerning aspects of frequent pork consumption include:

Parasites – Undercooked pork may transmit parasitic worms like trichinella or tapeworms. Thorough cooking kills parasites.
Hepatitis E – Raw or undercooked pork may spread the hepatitis E virus found in pig livers. Proper handling and cooking pork reduces infection risk.
Yersinia – Bacteria called Yersinia enterocolitica causes the foodborne illness yersiniosis which leads to diarrhea and fever.
Fatty Liver Disease – Some research indicates pork intake combined with alcohol may worsen fatty liver disease. More studies are needed.
Multiple Sclerosis – Higher total and saturated fat consumption from meats like pork may be linked to greater MS risk.

Potential Risks of Beef

Concerns to note about regular beef consumption include:

Heart Disease – Beef’s high saturated fat content may raise LDL cholesterol levels, contributing to heart disease. Lean cuts are better.
Colon Cancer – Cooking beef at high temperatures forms compounds that may heighten colon cancer risk.
Kidney Problems – Red meats contain high levels of purines associated with gout and kidney stones in those prone to them.
Salmonella – Raw or undercooked beef may transmit salmonella bacteria, causing food poisoning. Safe handling and cooking kill germs.
Mad Cow Disease – Beef from cows with mad cow disease (BSE) may spread Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), but this is extremely rare in the U.S.

Overall, both meats bring health risks if consumed frequently or improperly handled/prepared. But pork poses some unique concerns regarding parasites, hepatitis E, and yersinia that beef does not.

Ways to Reduce Health Risks of Pork and Beef

Here are some tips to minimize potential health risks when including pork or beef in your diet:

Choose leaner cuts of meat and trim visible fat before cooking
Limit portion sizes to 3-4 oz couple times a week
Cook all pork and beef to safe internal temperatures (145°F for pork, 160°F for beef)
Combine meats with healthier side dishes like vegetables, whole grains and legumes
Use lower risk cooking methods like baking, roasting or grilling instead of frying
Practice safe food handling and prevent cross-contamination
Opt for other protein sources like poultry, fish, eggs or plant-based proteins

While both meats have risks with frequent consumption, overall pork appears potentially worse than beef regarding parasites and infections. However, beef may be more concerning for those managing heart health and cholesterol levels. Eating a variety of protein sources in moderation while limiting processed meats is ideal for overall health.

Healthier Pork and Beef Recipes

When enjoyed in balance, pork and beef can be incorporated into a nourishing diet. Here are some recipe ideas:

Healthy Pork Recipes

Baked Pork Chops – Rub bone-in chops with herbs and roast until just cooked through.
Stir Fry with Pork and Vegetables – Quickly stir fry pork strips with broccoli, carrots, peppers and reduced sodium soy sauce.
Cuban Pork Lettuce Wraps – Roast or slow cook pork shoulder until tender and shred. Serve in butter lettuce cups.

Healthy Beef Recipes

Beef and Vegetable Soup – Simmer chunks of sirloin tip or round in broth with carrots, onion, tomatoes and zucchini.
Beef Kabobs – Skewer cubed top sirloin with peppers, mushrooms and cherry tomatoes and grill.
Beef Tacos with Cabbage Slaw – Cook lean ground beef with taco seasoning and serve with shredded cabbage, salsa and cilantro.

Choosing properly handled lean cuts, controlling portions and cooking mindfully can help reduce the risks of both pork and beef. While some aspects make pork potentially worse than beef, smart preparation and balance are keys to enjoying either as part of an overall nutritious lifestyle.

is pork worse than beef

Peter R. C. Howe

3Clinical Nutrition Research Centre, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia; E-Mail: [email protected] articles by

Around the world, most people eat pork. New research suggests that diets high in pork protein may be good for body composition, even if you don’t limit your energy intake. It’s not clear, though, whether these changes in body composition are unique to pork or if other high-protein meat diets may have the same effect. Therefore we aimed to compare regular consumption of pork, beef and chicken on indices of adiposity. In a nine-month randomised open-labelled cross-over intervention trial, 49 overweight or obese adults were randomly assigned to eat up to 1 kg/week of pork, chicken, or beef. They were not limited in any other way during the first three months, and then they ate each type of meat for two more three-month periods. BMI and waist/hip circumference were measured and body composition was determined using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Dietary intake was assessed using three day weighed food diaries. Energy expenditure was estimated from activity diaries. There was no difference in BMI or any other measure of fatness between people who ate pork, beef, or chicken. Similarly there were no differences in energy or nutrient intakes between diets. When middle-aged Australian men and women who are overweight or obese eat lean pork meat instead of beef or chicken on a regular basis for three months, their body fat levels change in the same way.

The global prevalence of obesity is increasing [1,2,3]. In Australia, 66.3 percent of the population is overweight or obese [4]. This is a major health concern because obesity is linked to other cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, poor mental health, and physical disability, which raises the risk of death [5]. Key strategies employed to reduce weight involve lifestyle intervention including caloric restriction and regular exercise. Using lean beef as the main source of protein [8] and limiting the amount of calories you eat are two diet strategies that have been shown to help people lose weight. It wasn’t until recently that there was almost no research looking into eating pork and possible health benefits. This is surprising given it is the most widely eaten meat in the world [10]. Many years ago, people thought that meat was high in fat, which made them worry about how it might affect their health [11,12]. However, lean meat is actually low in fat and a good source of protein, iron, vitamins, and minerals. There isn’t much evidence to show why Australians don’t eat much pork; they mostly eat beef and chicken. Pork is a good source of protein, and new research suggests that lean pork may be good for your heart and metabolism [13,14].

Wycherley and his colleagues [14] did a study that looked at the effects of three diets on weight loss and body composition over 16 weeks. The diets were (1) a low-calorie, high-protein pork diet combined with resistance training; (2) a standard carbohydrate diet (control) with and without exercise; and (3) a diet matched for protein without exercise. The authors showed that the high pork protein diet achieved the greatest losses of weight (−13. 8 kg) and fat mass (−11. 1 kg) and reduction in waist circumference (−13. 7 cm) compared with the other two diets. Another thing that got better was CV risk factors like blood pressure, lipids, insulin, and glucose. There was no difference between the groups. We showed in a pilot study that eating lean pork whenever you wanted for six months without limiting your energy led to better body composition than eating normally for six months (weight loss on the pork diet: −0 8 ± 0. 3 kg, habitual diet: 0. 2 ± 0. 5 kg), fat mass (pork diet: −0. 5 ± 0. 2 kg, habitual diet: 0. 4 ± 0. 3 kg), waist circumference (pork diet: −0. 6 ± 0. 4 cm, habitual diet: 0. 8 ± 0. 4%20cm),%20abdominal%20fat%20(pork%20diet:%20%E2%88%9269%20%C2%B1%2024%20g,%20habitual%20diet:%2022%20%C2%B1%2026%20g),%20%body%20fat%20(pork%20diet:%20%E2%88%920 4% ± 0. 2%, habitual: 0. 2% ± 0. 2%)) [13]. These changes were seen after just three months of eating pork instead of their usual diet, and they happened without limiting their energy intake. Over time, both the pork and control groups ate less total energy, fat, saturated fat, carbs, and protein, but the changes were not very noticeable. Even though both groups cut back on what they ate, only the pork group saw changes in their body composition. However, it wasn’t clear if the changes in body composition were only caused by eating pork or if eating other high-protein meats regularly might have had the same effect. The nutrients (including amino acids) profile of pork doesn’t seem to be very different from that of other meats that are studied a lot (e.g. g. , beef, chicken etc. Because of this, we wanted to see what happened to indices of adiposity when people in Australia regularly ate lean pork compared to chicken and beef, which are also commonly eaten meats. We did not expect any difference in body composition between the three meat groups because there isn’t much nutritional difference between pork, beef, and chicken.

6. Body Mass Index and Body Composition

Each participant’s height and mass were recorded to calculate BMI (kg/m2). Height was measured to the nearest 0. 1 cm whilst barefoot using a wall-mounted stadiometer (SECA; Vogel and Halke, Hamburg, Germany). Body mass was measured to the nearest 0. 1 kg with participants wearing light clothing using the TANITA Ultimate Scale 2000 (Tanita Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). ISAK international guidelines, as explained by Norton and Olds [23], were used to measure the waist and hips with a metric tape measure. The waist to hip ratio (WHR) was then found. People took part in the study had their percentage of body fat, fat mass (kg), abdominal fat (g), and lean mass (% and kg) measured using a DEXA machine (Lunar Prodigy, General Electric, Madison, WI, USA). The lunar prodigy software calculated the amount of fat in the abdomen from a DEXA scan of the area starting at the top of the iliac crest and extending to the edge of the abdominal soft tissue. The upper margin was set at 2020% above the pelvis, spanning the pelvis to the neck borders.

Based on what we already knew about the variability in the primary outcome measure (change in 20% body fat from baseline to three months), we thought that a total of 551 participants would give us 80% power to find a significant (p < 0.05) difference. 05) a 1% difference in the change in body fat percentage between dietary treatments or a 2% change in body weight at an alpha level of 200 05. The trial participants' data were checked to make sure they were normal, and then Random-effects GLS Regression was used to find differences between means where significant main effects were seen. STATA Statistics Data analysis 11 (StataCorp, Texas, USA) was used to look at changes in body fat at the end of each diet phase. Data are presented as means ± SEM (standard error of mean). To allow for multiple comparisons, significance was set at p < 0. 003 for dietary intake data and p < 0. 006 for anthropometry and body composition data.

75 participants were enrolled from the 101 participants deemed eligible, to allow for an approximate 40% withdrawal rate. Out of the 75 people who signed up for the intervention, 11 dropped out before it started because they changed their minds or had other commitments come up, and 15 dropped out after it started. Five people dropped out of the study because they couldn’t commit to it (n = 5), four because they were sick, two because they moved across state lines (n = 2), three because they had too many time commitments (n = 3), and one because they didn’t follow the protocol. Thus 49 participants completed the full 9-month intervention period with characteristics presented in . This population were on average middle aged (50 ± 2 years), obese (BMI 30. 5 ± 0. 5 kg/m2) with waist circumferences (WC) above the recommended cut off point (103 ± 11 cm) [5,24]. 49% of the population was obese and 51% overweight.

Mean ± SD
Gender n	24 M/25 W
Age (years)	50 ± 2
Height (m)	1.72 ± 0.1
Weight (kg)	90 ± 14
BMI (kg/m2)	30.5 ± 3.6
WC (cm)	102.6 ± 11.3
WC (cm)	108.5 ± 8.2 M/96.9 ± 11.0 W
HC (cm)	110.3 ± 10.1
HC (cm)	106.7 ± 5.4 M/113.7 ± 12.3 W
WHR	0.93 ± 0.1
WHR	1.02 ± 0.07 M/0.86 ± 0.07 W
% Body Fat	49.4 ± 6.3
Fat mass (kg)	35.3 ± 8.5
Abdominal fat (g)	3655 ± 1075
Lean mass (kg)	50.1 ± 9.8
Energy Expenditure
EExp (MJ)	16.3 ± 3.2
EExp (kcal)	3889 ± 753
Dietary Intake
Energy (MJ)	9.3 ± 3.0
Energy (kcal)	2222 ± 691
Protein (g)	103 ± 29
%en Protein	19 ± 3.4
CHO (g)	227 ± 70
%en CHO	41 ± 6.2
Fat (g)	89 ± 38
%en Fat	34 ± 6.4
SFA (g)	34 ± 13
%en SFA	14 ± 3.1
MUFA (g)	34 ± 17
PUFA (g)	14 ± 10
Alcohol (g)	10 ± 13
%en Alcohol	3 ± 4
Iron (mg)	13 ± 4
Zinc (mg)	14 ± 7

Three-day weighed food records were used to record what people ate, and three-day physical activity diaries were used to estimate how much energy people used.

Why I Don’t Eat Pork

FAQ

Which is more unhealthy beef or pork?

Pork. Lean pork is every bit as good for your body as lean beef and chicken. In one study, substituting lean pork for beef and chicken led to less body fat and better heart health.

Why is pork the unhealthiest meat?

While pork is rich in several important vitamins and nutrients, it can also be high in sodium and saturated fats, two things that should be avoided as part of a healthy diet.

What is the unhealthiest meat?

You have probably heard it many times already: don’t eat too much red meat or processed foods. But research shows processed red meats, like bacon, hot dogs, and salami are the biggest problem.

Is pork better than beef?

Pork has lower levels of fat and cholesterol than beef but has fewer minerals and vitamins. Pork is pig meat. It is a versatile and flavorful meat that can be grilled, roasted, fried, or braised. It is processed to make sausages, ham, bacon, and pulled pork. But is pork bad for you?

Why is pork not recommended to eat?

This is not true, some cuts like sirloin and pork rump steak, for example, are very healthy, even healthier than beef and chicken. Only the fattest cuts like bacon and crackling should be avoided.

Is beef a good fat if you eat pork?

The saturated and unsaturated fats ratio in beef is more evenly distributed than in pork. The fat profile of lean cuts of beef, especially those from grass-fed cattle, can be healthier and include advantageous omega-3 fatty acids. You can reduce the saturated fat content of pork by selecting lean cuts, such as tenderloin and loin chops.

Does pork have more ages than beef?

This study also found that cooked pork products tend to have fewer AGEs than cooked beef products. However, when comparing pork, chicken and beef, chicken products tend to have the least AGEs of all meat products. In a comparison of pork versus beef, pork has more nutrients but more fat.