The sunshine vitamin? Really? The true cause of vitamin D deficiency. Five practicable tips.

To begin with, if you like having a nice sunbath, say, after swimming, don’t be sure that you’ve done enough to get the vitamin D your body needs. The source of our perpetual vitamin D deficiency lies in our diet, which contains less and less food of animal origin. We can hardly help with our vitamin D deficiency without changing our everyday diet or if we depend on sunshine alone.

Vitamin D has recently come into the focus of attention in the public mind as well as in medical science. Now it seems that its importance has at last been recognized. Almost everybody knows today that the level of vitamin D does not only affect the bones alone. In fact, low vitamin D levels can pose health risks such as various infections, and have been associated with cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis.

However, some misconceptions that still exist today about vitamin D need some clarification. One is, for instance, the question from what source man should (or can) obtain his vitamin D according to his evolutionary program.

When one enters a drugstore, a bio shop or perhaps a pharmacy, the large number of vitamin D preparations offered will take him aback. Could it be the answer to the vitamin D problem? Some say that it could, provided it is combined with sunshine exposure. Well, we would like to explain in this article why that is not the optimal choice.

It is a fact that in summer the sun’s ultraviolet beams (UV-B) produce a relatively large amount of vitamin D in our skin from a specified form of cholesterol. Scientists engaged in vitamin D research often cite data that show a correlation between the blood’s vitamin D level and the latitudes at which people live as well as the number of sunshine hours, to support the conviction that the primary source of vitamin D is the sun. They call vitamin D the “sunshine vitamin”, and a book on vitamin D with the same title has actually appeared in Hungary, too.

As we are proceeding north, we receive less and less sunlight, which strikes us at a smaller and smaller angle. Researchers on vitamin D usually agree that because of the lower angle of the Sun above certain latitudes it is impossible to meet our requirement for vitamin D from sunlight alone. In winter, above 50° latitude vitamin D is not synthesized in the skin at all. Furthermore, the half-life of the vitamin is three weeks, and if we do not get additional supplies, the amount of vitamin D in our blood could drop below a critical level in about two months.

It gives reason for thought, however, that areas above 50° latitude were always widely populated during the long history of humankind. The Inuit tribes, for example, conquered the Arctic regions up to a geographical altitude of 80° - and they did not need vitamin tablets or sunbeds to do that. Several peoples inhabited, or still inhabit, the areas above the Arctic Circle, where they do not receive much sunlight because the frosty environment does not allow them to take off their clothes outdoors. These people remain healthy and do not show symptoms of vitamin D deficiency as long as they defy the customs and dietary habits of the civilized part of the world.

It is quite easy to see that if the Sun were the only source of vitamin D, the Arctic communities would never have access to sufficient amounts of the vitamin. In the Ice Age, which actually occurred not too long ago (the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago), our ancestors had even less sunlight than they would have today. Man could definitely not survive the glaciations that occurred in the Paleolithic epoch (i.e. the last 2.6 million years) if he depended on the Sun as his main source of vitamin D.

A study testing the levels of vitamin D3 in the Komi, a Uralic ethnic group living in Russia, was conducted a few years ago. Measured was the vitamin D3 levels first in a group of the Komis who adhered to their traditions, including traditional eating habits (they engaged in reindeer herding), then in another group whose members abandoned their traditional lifestyle and moved to live in a town 30 kilometres away. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of sunlight exposure: both wore heavy winter clothes outdoors, covering their bodies from top to toe. However, the vitamin D3 levels of the group living their non-traditional life in the town, was significantly lower, while the same level in the group leading a traditional life and having a traditional diet was in the normal range.

The vitamin D3 blood levels in the Komi living a traditional life in the tundra and those living in town showed a significant difference.

There is also further evidence to prove that the vitamin D level greatly depends on nutrition, and that appropriate nutrition alone is able to supply a satisfactory amount of vitamin D to our body even if we miss sunlight and don’t take vitamin D tablets. A study of the Inuit living in Greenland has found that the more western-type foods, such as fruits, vegetables, breads and pastries, milk and milk products, the local indigenous Inuits ate, the lower the vitamin D level in their blood was. And, conversely, the more traditional Inuit foods like meat and fat they consumed (that is, the more they retained the paleo-ketogenic diet), the higher the vitamin D level was in their blood.

The Greenlandic inuit have progressively abandoned their traditional lifestyle and diet. At the same time, the more often they eat traditional Inuit foods, the higher their vitamin D levels are. The vitamin D levels of the Inuit eating traditional dishes (fish, whale, sea mammals) are close to 30 ng/ml, which can be considered normal

The correlation between latitudes and vitamin D sufficiency researchers have been “used to” (i.e. that the farer we travel north, the lower vitamin D levels we find) would immediately disappear if they paid attention to hunter and gatherer populations and other peoples close to nature. A study analysing groups of people with European and non-European roots separately, found that vitamin D blood levels in locations far from the Equator decreased only in the case of Europeans (Hagenau and colleagues, 2008).

In the Paleolithic period, our ancestors hunted wild animals for meat all the year round, though sunlight-triggered vitamin D synthesis was limited to only a few months of the year, in the same way as today. It is then a logical conclusion that man during his long evolutionary history relied much more on nutrition than on sunlight.

ACTIVE AND INACTIVE VITAMIN D


Vitamin D3 from the diet or skin synthesis is inactive (25(OH)D). This inactive form is stored in the liver and fatty tissues and converts to active vitamin D (1.25(OH)D) mainly in the kidney and, to a lesser extent, in the liver and other tissues if needed. In fact, it is this active form that plays a role in our body and that many systems in our body may need. The conversion of inactive vitamin D to active vitamin D is a matter of key importance and may alter some of our views of the role of vitamin D in our health.


We almost perfectly know the biochemical steps in which inactive vitamin D transforms into active vitamin D, although there still are some unanswered questions. What we know for sure, however, is that calcium, phosphate, and fructose influence the transformation of the inactive form into active form in a quite complicated process.


On the other hand, the same factors, and various others, for instance the inflammation factors in our body, also affect the degradation of active vitamin D3. These are intricate biochemical mechanisms and their understanding requires profound knowledge of physiology. Self-appointed dietitians certainly do not dispose of such knowledge, so we might easily be misguided if we consult them on vitamin D.


The key to the vitamin D issue is not only how much inactive vitamin D3 enters our body, but also how it becomes useful active vitamin D3. If we listened to the self-designed paleo advisors, who are attracted to vegetable-and-fruit based diets as a rule (for instance, the nowadays trendy but entirely unscientific AIP diet), two or three fruits a day could easily ruin effective inactive-active vitamin D transformation.


Here follows an excellent physiological survey on vitamin D recommended for specialists as well as beginners who wish to improve their knowledge. It was written some time ago, but the basics of physiology do not change.


The following statements are in place about vitamin D based on biochemical, physiological and ecological research findings:

The reason for continual vitamin D deficiency in civilized human beings lies in their diets. Ever since we were warned against eating animal-based nutriments, our vitamin D levels have constantly been low.

Well, don’t think that your love of the sun and sunbathing will solve your vitamin D problem. If you want your vitamin D3 level to be balanced, if you want to ensure your child’s well-being and maximally diminish the risk of cancer, autoimmune disease and other diseases of civilization, consider these five important advices:

We should take a complex approach to our diet instead of getting lost in the multitude of nutrients and foods. Even petty errors can have fatal consequences. Our advice is to follow the nutritional trail ideal for human beings: the paleo-ketogenic diet. We may, of course, depart from this method and let ourselves be tempted by the allures of gastronomy, but in that case we might end up paying for our mistake.

Let me make a personal comment. It’s been evident ever since the heroic age of the paleo diet in Hungary, that the assumption that we should get the vitamin D we need from sunlight, cannot be accepted. Then it turned out that vitamin D supplements, like any other food supplements, pose certain health risks because they may enhance intestinal permeability and indirectly potentiate inflammatory and autoimmune responses. All the same, a book on popular paleo has also come out to contribute to the pseudoscientific approach to the vitamin D issue. Nonetheless, things seem to be getting clearer maybe, because once everything will fall into place anyway. (Dr Csaba Tóth)

Authors

Csaba Tóth

Zsófia Clemens

English translation: Annamária Zsengellér

References

https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/

Adriana S. Dusso, Alex J. Brown, Eduardo Slatopolsky. Vitamin D. American Journal of Physiology - Renal Physiology Jul 2005, 289 (1) F8-F28

Douard V, Ferraris RP. The role of fructose transporters in diseases linked to excessive fructose intake. J Physiol. 2013 Jan 15;591(2):401-14.

https://www.hse.ru/pubs/share/direct/document/89616858

Andersen S, Jakobsen A, Rex HL, Lyngaard F, Kleist IL, Kern P, Laurberg P. Vitamin D status in Greenland--dermal and dietary donations. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2013 Aug 5;72. doi: 10.3402/ijch.v72i0.21225. eCollection 2013.

Hagenau T, Vest R, Gissel TN, Poulsen CS, Erlandsen M, Mosekilde L, Vestergaard P. Global vitamin D levels in relation to age, gender, skin pigmentation and latitude: an ecologic meta-regression analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2009 Jan;20(1):133-40.

Scientific publications of the authors on vitamin D:

Altbäcker A, Plózer E, Darnai G, Perlaki G, Orsi G, Nagy SA, Lucza T, Schwarcz A, Kőszegi T, Kovács N, Komoly S, Janszky J, Clemens Z. Alexithymia is associated with low level of vitamin D in young healthy adults. Nutr Neurosci. 2014 17:284-8. 

Plózer E, Altbäcker A, Darnai G, Perlaki G, Orsi G, Nagy SA, Schwarcz A, Kőszegi T, Woth GL, Lucza T, Kovács N, Komoly S, Clemens Z, Janszky J. Intracranial volume inversely correlates with serum 25(OH)D level in healthy young women. Nutr Neurosci. 2015;18:37-40.

Clemens Z, Holló A, Kelemen A, Rásonyi G, Fabó D, Halász P, Janszky J, Szűcs A. Seasonality in epileptic seizures. J Neurol Transl Neurosci 2013 1: 1016.

Clemens Z, Holló A. Comment on “VEEG models of seizure frequency — Do SSRI medications or vitamin D supplements alter seizure collections?” Epilepsy & Behavior , 2015;  45 : 81.

Holló A, Clemens Z, Lakatos P. Epilepsy and vitamin D. Int J Neurosci. 2014 Jun;124(6):387-93.

Holló A, Clemens Z, Kamondi A, Lakatos P, Szűcs A. Correction of vitamin D deficiency improves seizure control in epilepsy: a pilot study. Epilepsy Behav. 2012 May;24(1):131-3.

The Paleomedicina approach is that of evolutionary medicine which has a wholly scientific basis. We do not use naturopathic methods and we distance ourselves from such methods. Our scientific papers published in international medical journals can be viewed here.

2018-01-10

https://www.paleomedicina.com/en/vitamin_D_sunshine_vitamin_cause_of_vitamin_d_deficiency

Red Meat vs. White Meat: Which is Healthier?

Read anything about meat and it quickly gets confusing.

The popular narrative suggests that red meat contains some important nutrients, but it's not the best food for our health.

Instead, we're urged to replace meats like beef and lamb with poultry and other white meat. 

But is cutting out red meat a good idea? And is white meat really healthier? 

This article examines the key differences between red and white meat and answers the question; which one is healthier?

What Is Red Meat?

The simplest definition dictates that meats which are red in their raw state are 'red meat'.

However, we can also define red meat by its high myoglobin content. 

Myoglobin is a type of protein found in meat which has a deep red color (1). 

In fact, the red liquid you often see in a pack of meat isn't blood; it is a combination of myoglobin and water.

Put simply; the more myoglobin a meat contains, the darker red it will be. Some examples of red meat include beef, bison, lamb, and pork.

The healthiest red meats you can eat are those in their unprocessed form, ideally raised in a natural environment.

How is Red Meat Good For You?

It's widely accepted that red meat contains many important nutrients;specifically, protein, vitamin B12, and the minerals iron and zinc. 

This is only a selection of the beneficial compounds we can find in red meat, and there are many more.

Notably, rates of iron deficiency anemia have been rising over recent years, effectively doubling between 2003 and 2012 in the United States (2).

As the most significant dietary source of iron, could falling rates of red meat consumption be playing a role?

Concerns About Red Meat Consumption

There are also some worries that red meat may have negative impacts on our long-term health.

In particular, these concerns relate to findings from nutritional epidemiologythat suggest higher red meat intake increases mortality (4).

Furthermore, red meat has been listed by the World Health Organization as a "likely carcinogen" (5).

Part of these concerns specifically relate to the high-heat cooking of red meat. 

We will examine the evidence behind all of these claims later in the article.

Key Point: Red meat has a higher myoglobin content and it is naturally red in its raw state. It contains many essential nutrients, but some people have concerns over negative health impacts.

What Is White Meat?

White meat refers to poultry and light-colored meats. 

Sometimes this definition may also include fish, but people don't generally consider fish as a "meat", so for the purpose of this article we will focus on land animals.

It is also a myth that white meat doesn't contain myoglobin. Poultry does contain this protein, but in a much lesser quantity than red meat does.

Some examples of white meat include chicken, duck, turkey, and other types of poultry. 

How is White Meat Good For You?

For one thing, it does not have the health concerns that red meat does, and so we often hear it suggested as a replacement.

Additionally, leaner cuts of white meat are among the highest dietary sources of protein.

Poultry also contains a range of essential micronutrients.

Concerns About White Meat Consumption

Some people feel that white meat is a vastly inferior source of nutrition than red meat.

It is certainly true that red meat is more nutrient-dense, but is the nutritional profile of poultry really so bad?

Let's take a look.

Key Point: There are several alternate definitions, but they all accept poultry as a white meat. Like all meat, white meat contains important nutrients.

Nutrition Profile: Red Meat vs. White Meat

In this section, we'll look at the similarities and differences between red and white meat.

To make it fair, we will use the nutritional profiles of two red meats and two white meats;

• Ground beef (80% lean) (6)
• Ground lamb (7)
• Chicken thighs (8)
• Ground turkey (9)

Let's now examine how these four meats contrast in terms of fat, carbohydrate, protein, vitamins, minerals, and other bioactive compounds per 100g.

All nutrition data is sourced from the USDA.

​Carbohydrate

No meats contain any carbohydrate.

Fat

(Saturated Fat: SFA | Monounsaturated Fat: MUFA | Polyunsaturated Fat: PUFA)

​	Beef	Chicken	Lamb	Turkey
Total Fat	17.8 g	9.8 g	13.8 g	13.1 g
- SFA	6.8 g	2.7 g	6.4 g	3.4 g
- MUFA	7.9 g	3.7 g	5.6 g	4.9 g
- PUFA	0.5 g	2.2 g	0.6 g	3.2 g
- Omega-3	48 mg	180 mg	175 mg	200 mg
- Omega-6	411 mg	1890 mg	360 mg	366 mg

As shown in the table, beef and lamb---the red meats---tend to be higher in saturated fat and lower in polyunsaturated fats.

On the other hand, chicken and turkey are very low in saturated fat and higher in polyunsaturates.

All meats have a roughly 10:1 ratio of omega 6 to 3 except for lamb; the majority of lamb are raised on pasture with a grass-based diet.

Opting for grass-fed beef or pasture-raised poultry would lower these ratios.

Protein

​	Beef	Chicken	Lamb	Turkey
Protein:	25.7 g	25.0 g	25.7 g	27.4 g

Both red and white meats are good sources of protein.

Vitamin Profile

Here is the vitamin content of all four meats based on the recommended daily allowance (RDA).

Vitamin	Beef	Chicken	Lamb	Turkey
Vitamin A	0%	1%	0%	0%
Vitamin E	2%	1%	0%	2%
Vitamin K	2%	4%	0%	1%
Vitamin B1	3%	4%	9%	4%
Vitamin B2	10%	13%	23%	10%
Vitamin B3	25%	26%	27%	24%
Vitamin B6	18%	10%	22%	20%
Folate	2%	2%	0%	2%
Vitamin B12	45%	3%	51%	6%
Vitamin B5	7%	9%	9%	8%

As we can see from this data, all meats provide a decent range of vitamins.

However, the major difference comes from the vitamin B12 content; red meat is a much bigger source of B12.

Vitamin B12 is an essential vitamin that, among other functions, is responsible for blood cell formation, neurological health and DNA synthesis (10).

Those suffering from a B12 deficiency (such as vegetarians and the elderly) are at greater risk for a variety of health problems (11).

Minerals

Mineral	Beef	Chicken	Lamb	Turkey
Calcium	2%	1%	1%	2%
Iron	14%	8%	13%	11%
Magnesium	5%	5%	6%	6%
Phosphorus	19%	15%	22%	20%​​​​​​
Potassium	9%	5%	10%	8%
Sodium	3%	3%	3%	4%
Zinc	42%	17%	32%	19%
Copper	4%	4%	8%	4%
Manganese	1%	1%	1%	1%
Selenium	31%	24%	14%	53%

Again, we can see that red meat provides a more significant range of minerals than white meat does.

However, all four of these meats are relatively nutrient-dense and a good source of minerals. 

Key Point: Red and white meats are similar in terms of their macronutrient profile. However, there are some differences regarding micronutrients;  red meat tends to offer a greater quantity of vitamins and minerals.

Bioactive Compounds in Meat

In addition to the nutrient profiles, meat also contains a variety of bioactive compounds that infer health benefits.

These include;

• Carnosine: An amino acid that may have anti-glycation, anti-inflammatory and immune-regulating properties (12, 13).
• Choline: An essential nutrient that plays a key role in our central nervous system, memory and other cognitive functions (14).
• Coenzyme Q10: This compound acts in a vitamin-like manner in the body. It helps to generate energy for the growth, repair, and maintenance of our cells (15). 
• Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA): This is a natural (don't worry) trans-fat that research suggests may provide a host of health benefits. Some of these include better insulin sensitivity and, potentially, improved fat loss (16, 17). 
• Creatine: Creatine is a potent performance enhancer that helps improve endurance, muscular growth, and overall performance (18).
• Glutathione: Commonly referred to as the body's master antioxidant, glutathione helps to fight oxidative stress and inflammation (19).
• L-Carnitine: Carnitine plays an important role in fat metabolism. Studies also show that it has beneficial impacts on various health markers, such as fasting glucose levels and hypertension (20, 21).
• Taurine: Taurine is an abundant amino acid involved in many functions. Notably, it may play a key preventive role against cardiovascular diseases (22).

How Do These Compounds Differ in Red and White Meat?

Per 100g, these compounds are present in the amounts shown in the table below.

In regard to CLA, there is a big contrast between different meats (e.g. beef vs. pork and chicken vs. turkey). For this reason, the highest dietary source of the compound has been listed.

Compound	Red Meat	White Meat
Carnosine (23)	350 mg >	< 300 mg
Choline (24)	< 100 mg (liver: 300 mg >)	< 100 mg (liver: 300 mg >)
Conenzyme Q10 (25)	3 mg >	< 2 mg
CLA (26)	Beef/lamb: 4-6 mg	Turkey: 2.5 mg
Creatine (27)	300 - 500 mg	300 - 500 mg
Glutathione (28)	12 - 26 mg	6 - 13 mg
L-Carnitine (29)	56 - 162 mg	3 - 5 mg
Taurine (30)	3.5 - 4.0 mmg	1.6 - 6.6 mmg

Key Point: Red and white meat both contain beneficial compounds, but red meat has slightly higher concentrations.

Is Red Meat Bad For You?

Now we have established that red meat has a higher amount of beneficial nutrients and compounds, what about the drawbacks?

Some people consider that we should limit our intake due to links between red meat and risks of disease.

Let's examine these issues;

1. Nutritional Epidemiology: Red Meat Causes Cancer 

Epidemiological studies show there is a clear link between red meat and cancer incidence, particularly regarding colorectal cancer rates (31).

However, it's important to remember that these are observational studies. In fact, the very same paper referenced above explains that;

"The definition for red meat varies between studies. Generally, it is defined as all fresh, minced, and frozen beef, veal, pork, and lamb, and processed meat preserved by the addition of preservatives or by marinating, smoking, salting, air-drying, heating, or methods other than freezing, which include ham, bacon, sausages, pate, and tinned meat."

In other words, most of the studies on red meat do not differentiate between a home-cooked steak and a tin of spam.

Furthermore, they don't account for any differences between the following two meals;

Meal 1: Steak, fresh vegetables, and a glass of water.

Meal 2: McDonald's meal of a Big Mac with french fries and cola.

If the entire population were eating similar to meal 1, then there would be strong support for these epidemiological risks identified with red meat consumption.

However, most of the people eating red meat are eating it in meals that also contain refined carbohydrates and vegetable oils.

There are no randomized controlled trials or clinical trials of any nature that show links between red meat and cancer.

Key Point: There are observational links between red meat consumption and cancer. However, there are too many confounders and correlation does not equal causation.

2. Red Meat and Cancer: What Do Systematic Reviews Say?

Various systematic reviews have examined the effects of red meat in relation to cancer risk.

Here is a summary;

Systematic Reviews

• Red meat, processed meat, or total meat is not associated with hepatocellular carcinoma (32).
• There is insufficient evidence to confirm a link between red meat consumption as part of a healthy eating pattern and colorectal cancer (33).
• Consumption of red meat and processed meat was associated with the overall risk of colorectal cancer (34).
• There is currently no evidence of a mechanistic link between colorectal cancer and red meat consumption as part of a healthy dietary pattern (35)

As we can see, systematic reviews confirm that there is an association between red meat and colorectal cancer.

However, they also demonstrate that there is no evidence that red meat causes colorectal cancer.

Personally, I think what people eat with red meat is the most important consideration. 

Considering that almost 60% of the food people eat is ultra-processed food, it's likely that most red meat consumption is part of an unhealthy dietary pattern.

Key Point: Association doesn't equal causation. There are links between red meat intake and cancer, but there is no mechanism for causation. There is also no evidence that risks are higher in healthy eaters.

3. Does Red Meat Increase the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease?

In similar fashion, there are epidemiological studies that suggest higher red meat consumption may increase cardiovascular risk (36).

Firstly, this is open to the same criticisms as the association between red meat and cancer.

Secondly, a recent systematic review examined this issue. This meta-analysis was fairly in-depth and featured 24 randomized controlled trials. 

To summarize, the study found that 0.5 servings of red meat per day (or 3.5 servings per week) doesn't have any impact on cardiovascular risk (37).

In other words, this consumption of red meat had no effect on blood pressure, lipoproteins or other cardiovascular risk factors.

Going purely by the evidence, we can't assume the same is true of higher meat intakes, but there's also no reason to believe that higher consumption levels are harmful.

Key Point: Does red meat increase cardiovascular risk? Observational studies say yes, but randomized controlled trials say no.

4. High Heat Cooking and Red Meat

Evidence also suggests that how we cook meat determines how healthy (or harmful) it is.

Unlike the epidemiological studies, there is a stronger case that this is something we should be careful about.

The issue revolves around certain compounds known as heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Notably, these compounds are suspected carcinogens and they form when cooking red meat at high temperatures (38, 39). 

It's worth noting that these compounds can form in white meat too. 

How High is the Risk?

First, it is not confirmed that consuming HCAs or PAHs increases cancer risk.

However, meta-analyses and systematic reviews suggest that these compounds may possibly be a reason meat eaters have a higher (observational) cancer risk (40, 41).

On the positive side, these compounds occur solely from cooking meat at very high temperatures.

Mitigating the Risk

If we believe that HCAs and PAHs represent a health risk, then there are some steps we can take to mitigate the risk.

These include the following measures;

• Emphasize lower heat and gentler cooking methods. More HCAs form at temperatures over 220°C (428°F) or during longer cooking times. With red meat, rare to medium is better than well done (42).
• Using vinegar-based marinades helps to reduce the formation of HCAs in meat. Particularly, studies show that these may decrease the HCA content by as much as 88% (43). 
• Cooking with red wine reduces HCA formation by 72.5% - so a glass of red with a meal may also be beneficial. Using additional herbs and spices reduces this number even more (44).

Key Point: Cooking meat at high temperatures increases the formation of suspected carcinogens. However, there are steps we can take to minimize/mitigate this potential risk.

Red Meat vs. White Meat: Which is Healthier?

First of all, all meat is nutritious and full of protein, nutrients, and other beneficial compounds.

However, the research shows that red meat is the superior of the two in terms of nutritional value.

The main advantage is the much higher vitamin B12 content.

That said, the difference between red and white meat isn't as wide as some people assume, and poultry is also nutrient-dense.

All in all, both red and white meat offer a variety of health benefits.

http://nutritionadvance.com/healthy-foods/red-vs-white-meat/