Nezam El-Tayebat Fact CheckA scientific assessment of the “نظام الطيبات” nutrition system
Choose country

Unclear / insufficient evidence Certainty of evidence: very low provisional C-CHK-11

The modern broiler provides more energy from fat than from protein, with an omega-6:omega-3 ratio up to 9:1 instead of the recommended 2:1.

Conclusion: A single small UK study is not enough to conclude that modern chicken is a high-fat food.
  1. Original statement
  2. Scientific assessment
  3. In plain language
  4. Studies on this claim
  5. Regional context
  6. What applies in my country?
  7. References

Original statement

وفي Public Health Nutrition (2010) ثبت أن دجاج التسمين الحديث يعطي طاقة من الدهون أكثر من البروتين، بنسبة أوميغا6/أوميغا3 تصل إلى 9:1 بدلاً من 2:1 الموصى بها

verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

The modern broiler provides more energy from fat than from protein, with an omega-6:omega-3 ratio up to 9:1 instead of the recommended 2:1.

Origin

Source status
Archive editors
Attribution
Archive editors (not Elawady)
Origin
https://eltayebat.com/rule/industrial-chicken/
Attribution uncertainty
Narrative and study selection written by the archive operators; the archive states the forbidden section is documented independently of Dr. Diaa's words.
Claimed health effect

Contribution to obesity; poor fatty-acid profile.

Population concerned

general population (not specified)

Geographic restriction by Elawady

none found

Scientific assessment

Unclear / insufficient evidence – The data do not allow an assessment either way.

Certainty of evidence: very low – Any assessment is very uncertain.

1. What was claimed?

Modern chicken is fattier than protein-rich and has an unfavourable omega-6/omega-3 ratio.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

Wang et al. 2010 reported that in their 2004 UK samples of whole chickens with skin, energy from fat exceeded energy from protein (fat:protein energy ratio 3.1 conventional, 2.1 organic), compared with 0.8 in 1970 reference data, and n-6:n-3 ratios of roughly 5-10 (A-CHK-06). In this sense the archive is partly right that whole chickens sampled in 2004 were fattier than 1970 reference values.

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

The archive says this was 'proven'; it was a descriptive snapshot with non-random sourcing (including a football club) and an unreported total sample size. The finding refers to whole birds and cuts with skin: skinless breast fillets were lean (about 1.4-1.7 g triglyceride per 100 g). Organic chickens showed similar fat and n-6:n-3 patterns, so the study does not identify a property specific to conventional 'modern broilers' (A-CHK-06).

4. What remains unclear?

Representativeness for current EU or Egyptian broilers.

5. Which studies support it?

A-CHK-06 (partial: whole birds with skin; organic similar; skinless breast lean).

6. Which studies contradict it?

None reviewed.

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

Not assessed.

8. What is known about Egypt?

Not assessed.

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

Removing skin reduces fat; the omega-6 ratio of the whole diet matters more than one food.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence

Single small 'snapshot' study of UK chickens 2004-2008 (full text read): sample size not reported, subgroups of 1-12 samples, partly supplied via media contacts. The fat-rich finding applies to whole birds and cuts with skin; skinless breast was lean, and organic birds showed similar patterns. No independent replication reviewed.

Source quality

Archive editorial; the archive's wording 'ثبت' (proven) overstates a descriptive snapshot.

Regional transferability

UK samples 2004-2008; transfer uncertain.

Individual exceptions

Not applicable.

Regional scope of the claim
depends on production conditions
Last reviewed
25 October 2026 provisional

In plain language

The archive cites a small British study from 2010 that found more fat than protein energy in whole chickens with skin, compared with older data from the 1970s. This was a snapshot, not a representative survey. Chicken breast without skin was lean in the same study, and organic chickens were similar to conventional ones. The finding is not enough to judge modern chicken in general.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (1)

  • Fat content of UK chickens

    Wang Y et al.. Public Health Nutr 2010 · PMID 19728900 · DOI 10.1017/S1368980009991157
    Othercited by the Tayebat archivefull text checked★ key study

    Whole chickens with skin had more energy from fat than protein; skinless breast was lean, and organic chickens were similar.

    The modern broiler provides more energy from fat than from protein, with an omega-6:omega-3 ratio up to 9:1 instead of the recommended 2:1.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    What is the fat content of chickens sold to the public?

    How was the study done?

    Descriptive analysis of fat content and fatty-acid composition of chickens sold in England

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    Total number not reported; groups of 1-12 samples; UK supermarket, farm, media- and football-club-supplied chickens

    What was actually found?

    Whole birds with skin: fat-to-protein energy ratio 3.1 (conventional) and 2.1 (organic); skinless breast fillets low in fat; n-6:n-3 ratio up to about 9-10:1 in both organic and conventional samples.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Descriptive

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Removing skin reduces fat.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Unknown total sample size, tiny groups, opportunistic sourcing, no statistics, historical data from different methods.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Weak support.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Low.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot represent all chicken, cannot attribute fat to industrial production (organic was similar), and says nothing about health effects; does not apply to skinless breast meat.

    Scientific details →

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (0)

No studies in this group.

Studies with mixed or unclear results (0)

No studies in this group.

Regional context

Germany / EU

Not assessed.

Egypt

Not assessed.

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

Unclear / insufficient evidence A single small UK study is not enough to conclude that modern chicken is a high-fat food.

The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:

  • Veterinary medicines and antibiotics
  • Hormonal growth promoters
  • Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate)
  • Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.)
  • Animal husbandry and feed
  • Controls, imports, recalls, labelling

Poultry

Choose a country to see the checked information for it.

Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.

Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country

References

  1. Modern organic and broiler chickens sold for human consumption provide more energy from fat than protein.. Wang Y et al.. Public Health Nutr 2010 · PMID 19728900 · DOI 10.1017/S1368980009991157

← Back to overview