Laboratory / cell studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-CHK-112 standard review
Woody chicken breast digests as well as normal breast in the lab
Impact of Wooden Breast myopathy on in vitro protein digestibility, metabolomic profile, and cell cytotoxicity of cooked chicken breast meat.
Overview
Trithavisup T et al.. Poult Sci 2024 · PMID 37992618 · DOI 10.1016/j.psj.2023.103261
In simulated digestion, woody breast protein was digested as well as normal breast.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: low
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Does wooden breast change protein digestibility or toxicity of cooked breast meat?
- How was the study done?
In vitro static digestion, peptidomics, metabolomics and cell assays
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
6 WB and 6 non-WB breasts
- What was actually found?
No significant differences in free-NH2, degree of hydrolysis or peptide size distribution at late intestinal digestion; WB digests had more oxidatively modified peptides; no potentially toxic metabolites in either; digests (1.56-100 ug/mL) did not affect viability of Caco-2 and Vero cells, but WB samples reduced Caco-2 viability compared with non-WB.
- How large was the observed effect?
No significant differences in free-NH2, degree of hydrolysis or peptide size distribution at late intestinal digestion; WB digests had more oxidatively modified peptides; no potentially toxic metabolites in either; digests (1.56-100 ug/mL) did not affect viability of Caco-2 and Vero cells, but WB samples reduced Caco-2 viability compared with non-WB.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Woody breast is a texture defect; it is not less digestible.
- What are the study's limitations?
In vitro; n = 6 per group; Cell findings of unclear relevance
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts indigestibility; the cell result is a weak open question.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
General.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
No human study.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Trithavisup T et al.
- Journal
- Poult Sci
- Year
- 2024
- Identifier
- PMID 37992618 DOI 10.1016/j.psj.2023.103261
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26; Crossref 2026-10-26
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract
2. Research question
Does wooden breast change protein digestibility or toxicity of cooked breast meat?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Laboratory / cell study – In vitro static digestion, peptidomics, metabolomics and cell assays
- Population
Cooked breasts with and without severe WB
- Country
Thailand
- Period
not stated
- Sample size
6 WB and 6 non-WB breasts
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
as described in the abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Severe wooden breast
- Comparator
Normal breast
- Endpoints
Free NH2, degree of hydrolysis, peptide profile, metabolites, Caco-2 and Vero cell viability
- Statistical methods
as reported in the abstract
5. Actual results
- Results
No significant differences in free-NH2, degree of hydrolysis or peptide size distribution at late intestinal digestion; WB digests had more oxidatively modified peptides; no potentially toxic metabolites in either; digests (1.56-100 ug/mL) did not affect viability of Caco-2 and Vero cells, but WB samples reduced Caco-2 viability compared with non-WB.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
No adverse effect of WB on protein digestibility.
6. Strengths
- Direct test of woody breast meat
7. Weaknesses
- In vitro; n = 6 per group
- Cell findings of unclear relevance
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Small in vitro study.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Digestibility equal; a small cell-viability difference is an open question, not evidence of harm.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Directly tests whether 'woody' modern breast is less digestible.
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
13. Overall methodological judgement
In simulated digestion, woody breast protein was digested as well as normal breast.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | low |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | low |
| Directness | indirect |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | mixed |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
15. Linked fact checks
- Modern chicken breast is indigestible and damages the digestive system and gut microbiome. – Studies with mixed or unclear results