现代鸡胸肉难以消化，会损害消化系统和肠道微生物组。

支持该说法的研究 (0)

该组中没有研究。

与该说法相矛盾或限制该说法的研究 (2)

• Chicken protein is very well digested by humans

  Kashyap S et al.. J Nutr 2024 · PMID 39307282 · DOI 10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.09.014
  其他独立交叉核查已核查摘要

  In a human tracer study, 95.9% of tryptophan from chicken meat was digested, the highest of all foods tested.

  Chicken meat protein was the most digestible protein tested in humans (Trp 95.9%).

  该研究是否支持这一具体说法？ 否 · 方法学质量: 中 · 证据确定性：见该说法的总体评估

  原始文献 · 科学细节

  研究通俗解读

  研究人员想了解什么？

  What is the true ileal-equivalent digestibility of tryptophan in plant and animal proteins in humans?

  研究是如何开展的？

  Human dual-isotope tracer study using intrinsically labelled proteins (banked samples)

  研究了多少人、动物或样本？

  chicken meat n = 6

  实际发现了什么？

  True Trp digestibility: chicken meat 95.9 +/- 2.2%, whole egg 91.4 +/- 2.6%, egg white 89.7 +/- 2.5%, goat milk 92.8 +/- 2.9%, chickpea 72.6 +/- 2.3%, whole mung bean 67.6 +/- 3.7%. Plant proteins significantly lower than animal proteins.

  观察到的效应有多大？

  True Trp digestibility: chicken meat 95.9 +/- 2.2%, whole egg 91.4 +/- 2.6%, egg white 89.7 +/- 2.5%, goat milk 92.8 +/- 2.9%, chickpea 72.6 +/- 2.3%, whole mung bean 67.6 +/- 3.7%. Plant proteins significantly lower than animal proteins.

  研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

  Chicken is one of the most easily digested protein foods.

  该研究有哪些局限？

  Small n per protein; One amino acid reported here; Chicken type and cooking not described in abstract

  它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

  Directly contradicts 'indigestible'.

  研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

  Biology is universal.

  从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

  Does not test woody breast or the microbiome.

  科学细节 →

• Defective chicken breasts were digested even faster in the lab

  Srimarut Y et al.. Foods 2024 · PMID 38201187 · DOI 10.3390/foods13010159
  实验室 / 细胞研究独立交叉核查已核查摘要

  Breast with wooden breast and white striping was broken down more, not less, in simulated digestion.

  Woody/striped breast was not less digestible; in vitro digestibility was higher.

  该研究是否支持这一具体说法？ 否 · 方法学质量: 低 · 证据确定性：见该说法的总体评估

  原始文献 · 科学细节

  研究通俗解读

  研究人员想了解什么？

  Do white striping and wooden breast change in vitro protein digestion and PDCAAS of cooked breast?

  研究是如何开展的？

  In vitro digestion and in vitro PDCAAS

  研究了多少人、动物或样本？

  not stated in abstract

  实际发现了什么？

  WS+WB samples had lower protein content, greater cooking loss and lipid oxidation; greater free NH2 and degree of hydrolysis at all phases; higher in vitro PDCAAS for all age groups (p < 0.05).

  观察到的效应有多大？

  WS+WB samples had lower protein content, greater cooking loss and lipid oxidation; greater free NH2 and degree of hydrolysis at all phases; higher in vitro PDCAAS for all age groups (p < 0.05).

  研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

  No sign that woody breast is hard to digest.

  该研究有哪些局限？

  In vitro only; Sample size not in abstract

  它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

  Contradicts 'indigestible'.

  研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

  General.

  从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

  No human data; lower protein content per gram.

  科学细节 →

该组中没有被标记为关键研究的研究。

结果不一或不明确的研究 (3)

• Meat and 25 common conditions (UK)

  Papier K et al.. BMC Med 2021 · PMID 33648505 · DOI 10.1186/s12916-021-01922-9
  队列研究独立交叉核查全文，含结构化偏倚风险评估★ 关键研究

  More poultry was linked to slightly more reflux, gastritis and diabetes, partly explained by body weight, and to less anaemia.

  Modern chicken breast is indigestible and damages the digestive system and gut microbiome.

  该研究是否支持这一具体说法？ 部分支持 · 方法学质量: 高 · 证据确定性：见该说法的总体评估

  原始文献 · 科学细节

  研究通俗解读

  研究人员想了解什么？

  Meat intake and 25 non-cancer conditions

  研究是如何开展的？

  Prospective cohort (UK Biobank), outcome-wide

  研究了多少人、动物或样本？

  474,985; Middle-aged UK adults

  实际发现了什么？

  Poultry per 30 g/day: GERD HR 1.17 (1.09-1.26), gastritis/duodenitis 1.12 (1.05-1.18), diverticular disease 1.10, gallbladder disease 1.11, diabetes 1.14 (1.07-1.21); lower iron-deficiency anaemia 0.83 (0.76-0.90). Associations substantially attenuated by BMI.

  观察到的效应有多大？

  Cox, multiple-testing correction

  研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

  Small associations, not proof of harm.

  该研究有哪些局限？

  Observational; associations small and largely explained by body weight; total energy and cooking method not measured; meat types not mutually adjusted; hospital-recorded outcomes only.

  它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

  Mixed.

  研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

  High (UK).

  从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

  Cannot show causation or that chicken is intrinsically indigestible; no absolute risks reported.

  科学细节 →

• Woody chicken breast digests as well as normal breast in the lab

  Trithavisup T et al.. Poult Sci 2024 · PMID 37992618 · DOI 10.1016/j.psj.2023.103261
  实验室 / 细胞研究独立交叉核查已核查摘要

  In simulated digestion, woody breast protein was digested as well as normal breast.

  WB meat was as digestible as normal meat; a minor cell-culture difference remains unexplained.

  该研究是否支持这一具体说法？ 部分支持 · 方法学质量: 低 · 证据确定性：见该说法的总体评估

  原始文献 · 科学细节

  研究通俗解读

  研究人员想了解什么？

  Does wooden breast change protein digestibility or toxicity of cooked breast meat?

  研究是如何开展的？

  In vitro static digestion, peptidomics, metabolomics and cell assays

  研究了多少人、动物或样本？

  6 WB and 6 non-WB breasts

  实际发现了什么？

  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.

  观察到的效应有多大？

  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.

  研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

  Woody breast is a texture defect; it is not less digestible.

  该研究有哪些局限？

  In vitro; n = 6 per group; Cell findings of unclear relevance

  它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

  Contradicts indigestibility; the cell result is a weak open question.

  研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

  General.

  从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

  No human study.

  科学细节 →

• Chicken and beef affected gut bacteria similarly

  Rueda-De Torre I et al.. Mol Nutr Food Res 2025 · PMID 40711376 · DOI 10.1002/mnfr.70189
  随机对照试验独立交叉核查已核查摘要

  In 16 young adults, chicken and beef diets changed gut bacteria only modestly and similarly.

  Chicken did not differ from beef in microbiota effects; a within-arm diversity decline was seen.

  该研究是否支持这一具体说法？ 部分支持 · 方法学质量: 低 · 证据确定性：见该说法的总体评估

  原始文献 · 科学细节

  研究通俗解读

  研究人员想了解什么？

  Do beef-based and chicken-based diets differ in their effect on the gut microbiota?

  研究是如何开展的？

  Randomised cross-over trial, two 8-week periods

  研究了多少人、动物或样本？

  16

  实际发现了什么？

  Both diets induced modest changes with no significant differences between groups. Alpha diversity declined significantly after the chicken diet, with an overall reduction across both interventions.

  观察到的效应有多大？

  Both diets induced modest changes with no significant differences between groups. Alpha diversity declined significantly after the chicken diet, with an overall reduction across both interventions.

  研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

  No evidence that chicken specifically damages the gut flora.

  该研究有哪些局限？

  Very small sample; Short duration; No clinical outcomes

  它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

  Gives no support to a specific microbiome harm from chicken.

  研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

  EU population.

  从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

  Too small to exclude effects.

  科学细节 →

该组中没有被标记为关键研究的研究。