Pork and Chicken Meals Similarly Impact on Cognitive Function and Strength in Community-Living Older Adults: A Pilot Study

Abstract

A pilot quasi-experimental study investigated whether provision of pork, a rich source of thiamin, as the main protein source in meals four times/week for 12 weeks resulted in improved muscle mass, body strength, and cognitive function in community-living older adults compared to similar meals containing chicken. Retirement villages were randomized to receive pre-prepared frozen meals containing either pork or chicken. Dietary intake was assessed by three-day food records and cognitive domains assessed using validated tests. Hand grip strength was measured and lower extremity performance assessed by the sit-to-stand test, get-up-and-go test and six-minute walk test. Forty-eight volunteers participated (78.2 ± 6.2 y). In linear mixed models, controlling for baseline physical activity and dietary protein and energy intake, no differences were found between pork (n = 19) and chicken (n = 12) groups. The chicken group had improved Rey Auditory Verbal Learning test scores (verbal learning and memory) at six weeks (p < 0.001). Provision of four pork meals a week did not result in improvements in cognitive function, nor measures of strength or physical function, compared to those receiving chicken meals in healthy older adults. This suggests that merely changing the type of dietary protein provided by meat does not impact physical or cognitive function.

Myoprotective Whole Foods, Muscle Health and Sarcopenia: A Systematic Review of Observational and Intervention Studies in Older Adults

“…Nine intervention studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ]. All except one [ 41 ] were RCTs of which four included resistance exercise with nutrition intervention [ 40 , 42 , 44 , 45 ].…”

Meat Consumption, Cognitive Function and Disorders: A Systematic Review with Narrative Synthesis and Meta-Analysis

“…After reviewing full texts, one record written in Japanese, four records with overlapping studies, two ecological studies, three records with changes of brain structure or β-amyloid (Aβ) deposit as outcomes, and eight records combining meat, fish, and other food together as exposures were excluded, including one paper with an unclear description on meat by Heys et al (2010) [23] without any reply from two authors contacted. Therefore, twenty-nine eligible records were included in the review: twelve cohort [9][10][11][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32], three case-control [33][34][35], thirteen cross-sectional studies [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48], and one intervention study [49] (Figure 1). Egger's regression model to detect small-study effects (P < 0.05).…”

“…The mean age of participants was more than 60 years except for two studies, one with a mean age of 52.9 years [46] and one with a range of 40-65 years [43]. Of twenty-nine eligible studies, twenty-four measured consumption of total meat based on a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and/or dietary records; one study reported consumption of beef and pork as the exposure [33]; one specified frequencies of use of red meat and sausages as the exposure [31]; two investigated whether participants had habitual intake of red meat with fat or chicken with skin (yes/no) [45,48]; and one intervention study used pork-containing meals as the exposure [49]. Among the studies included, five of them used Alzheimer's disease and/or dementia as outcomes [24,25,33,39,47], twenty-three measured cognitive function via one or a series of cognitive tests, and one reported both AD and cognitive function [31].…”

“…Twenty-one out of twenty-nine studies were of moderate quality; four studies were of high quality; and four were of low quality. These latter studies [34,40,47,49] were mainly limited in response or follow-up rate, outcome measures, and adjustment of confounding variables compared with other higher-quality studies, resulting in more caution needed when interpreting evidence. The specific assessment information is shown in Supplementary Table S4.…”

“…The only trial that compared effects of pork-containing meals with chicken-containing meals (control group) was conducted in sixty participants aged 60+ years in Australia [49]. During the 12-week intervention, twenty-nine participants dropped out.…”