We want to thank Karen Heath from the Noakes Foundation for taking the time to chew the fat with us (see what we did there?) in our mission to reframe pork and it’s public perception. As proud pork farmers and enthusiastic pork lovers, it was great to spend time discussing the nutritious and health aspect of the pork industry. 

Let’s start with the big question! In the world of nutrition, pork doesn’t always get the love it deserves. Why do you think that is?

You’re right – although pork is one of the most popular meat types worldwide (especially in China, Poland and Spain where consumption is above 53kg/capita/year), in South Africa only 7% of animal protein consumed is pork compared to 56% chicken, 22% beef and 4% sheep, mutton and lamb. Why? It seems to come down to consumer perceptions. Recent surveys have suggested that the bulk of pork consumption in this country is ascribed to upper middle class and affluent consumers while concerns around quality, perishability and food safety are also possible variables. Interestingly, in countries like the US, it’s chicken that tends to be associated with higher income groups. Of course, cultural and religious norms can’t be excluded from the table (excuse the pun) wherever in the world you might be.

Apart from meat quality attributes, the concept of healthfulness also plays a key role in consumer purchasing and consumption patterns, especially when it comes to high value items such as animal protein. Health perceptions, specifically around nutrition, are driven largely by communication in mainstream and social media based on the food-based dietary guidelines, recommendations published to guide consumers and educators on the best foods and drinks to consume to manage and/or reduce their risk of chronic disease.

Despite growing evidence to the contrary, the current food-based dietary guidelines recommend consumers to eat lean protein and to limit their intake of saturated fats. The guidelines advise to “Use fats sparingly: choose vegetable oils, rather than hard fats” and recommend replacing animal and plant sources of saturated fatty acids with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in order to protect heart health. It is for this reason that traditionally perceived ‘low fat’ proteins, such as chicken, are often preferred as part of a ‘healthy’ diet, and for those wanting to manage their weight.

When these guidelines are incorporated into marketing, social messaging and endorsed by organisations around the world, it’s hard to think otherwise, and you’d be forgiven for going with the flow and steering clear of fat.

And that’s where we think pork gets its bad rap – it tends to be painted with a single brush, as a ‘fatty’ protein, whereas the reality is quite different. When comparing pork meat cuts with the other most common meat options, pork loin has a lower fat content than beef loin, for example. If compared with chicken (normally recommended for lower fat content), pork loin and pork leg meat have a lower fat content than chicken meat with skin. The energy value of 100 g of pork meat can vary as much as 131 to 355 kcal, and the fat content can be as low as 4.7 g/100 g or as high as 31.8 g/100 g. So just as with any other animal protein, not all pork cuts are created equal: the cut you choose determines the fat you eat!

Another consideration in the world of nutrition science is that pork is often bundled together with beef and lamb. “Did you eat beef, pork, or lamb” is a single question on widely used food frequency questionnaires including the influential Nurses’ Health Study. This failure to distinguish between different types of meat in the scientific literature, may overlook the unique contribution of each of these proteins to a healthy diet.

But perhaps more importantly is that the actual dietary guidelines are being questioned – should we REALLY be eating lean protein and using vegetable oils like sunflower oil or margarine (others in this category include grapeseed oil, canola oil, cottonseed oil, corn oil and vegetable fats)? Emerging research is challenging the current dietary recommendations, with questions raised about their validity. Most of the studies used to develop the guidelines were based on observational studies with limited evidence on the absolute magnitude of any possible effects. Organisations that produced these guidelines have also been criticized for not conducting or accessing rigorous systematic reviews of the evidence, not disclosing conflicts of interest, and not explicitly addressing population values and preferences.

Importantly, research that HAS been done using detailed systematic reviews and large population-based studies have found no significant associations between unprocessed meat intake, saturated fat and mortality or major cardiovascular disease risk.

So, there is a bit of a gap in the literature when it comes to pork specifically. Plus, much of the perceptions and misconceptions around pork are based on assumptions… and as we know with the current dietary guidelines, misinformation.

Our goal with the research we are undertaking with SAPPO is to get to grips with what is really going on amongst consumers, specifically an athletic population who are traditionally health conscious and make carefully considered choices about their performance fuel of choice.

The Noakes Foundation have been shaking up ideas and public perceptions in the world of nutrition. What does your research really say about pork as a nutrient-dense meat compared to beef, chicken or lamb?

Movers and shakers – that’s us! The Noakes Foundation promotes evidence-based- nutrition and strongly believes in the power of science to reshape the conversation. Simply google ‘what is a healthy diet’ and you’ll be met with 2 410 000 000 results in 0,27 seconds. It’s confusing out there, so what we’re trying to do is rigorously question traditional dietary beliefs and advocate for healthy, more sustainable lifestyles.

At the core of this approach is a simple message: eat real, whole food. We encourage consumers to start taking note of what they eat by reading labels and to always choose those options with no label, or very little label! And this is where animal protein comes in: meat (full stop) … Eggs (full stop). It doesn’t get much shorter than that.

Protein plays a crucial role in human health, acting as the building block for cells, tissues, and organs. It’s essential for growth, repair, and maintenance of the body, supporting functions like immune system responses, blood clotting, and fluid balance. Protein also helps regulate various bodily processes, including metabolism and hormone production. Animal protein is particularly important as it is considered a complete protein – meaning it contains all nine essential amino acids that the human body cannot produce on its own. So when it comes to protein alone, pork contains on average around 25.39 g/100 g, not significantly different from beef (27.27g/100g), lamb (25.22g/100g) or poultry (23.18g/100g).

At the very least, pork has all the same goodness that beef, chicken and lamb do, but just like people, every protein is unique, and pork differentiates itself on the plate with a few key micronutrients. All animal protein is also a great source of B vitamins, but pork has a unique combination of Thiamin (B1), riboflavin (B2), and niacin (B3) – a set of B vitamins that play a central role in metabolism, energy production, and tissue repair. Pork is also a particularly good source of the amino acid leucine, which is important for muscle synthesis, edging out the competition from poultry and beef.

Part of our research will focus on whether these specific nutrient differences can impact overall health and performance. Our hypothesis is that the unique nutrient make-up of pork will have a positive impact on athletic training, performance and recovery.

People love to hate bacon. But is bacon really the villain it’s made out to be… or has it just been framed?

I think the question should really be… people have been ‘TOLD’ to hate bacon… can anyone REALLY hate bacon?

The biggest concerns previously raised about bacon is that it is considered a ‘processed’ meat, and there has been published evidence to show that processed meat is associated with increased risk of disease. The trouble is that with association studies like this, they don’t take into account all the other factors that could be at play. Were the participants who ate the processed foods also smokers? Did they do any activity? Did they eat margarine, or cereals? So it’s almost impossible to draw the conclusion that a person developed cancer because they were eating [insert food here]. You would need a carefully controlled randomized clinical control trial to be able to confirm one way or another. To date, those studies haven’t been done.

Bacon is recommended as part of a low carbohydrate, high fat diet and is included on the “GREEN’ food list. This is a list of foods which contain a carbohydrate content of less than 5g/100g and have shown to support both heart and metabolic health. How? Ah, I’m so glad you asked…(see response below)

Fat used to be the enemy – now it’s making a comeback. Can you break down why fat (especially animal fat) is essential and why pork fat should be part of that conversation?

Maybe a bit of background… way back in 1953, a well-respected biochemist (Ancel Keys) published a study that seemed to highlight dietary fat’s effect on cholesterol as being behind the risk of heart attack. What he failed to publish was that he selected only data that suited his hypothesis, so from the 22 countries that he included in the study, he chose to show data from only 6 of them. He did this to present a lovely straight line that linked cholesterol and heart disease… but when you add in all the other data, there is absolutely no association at all. In addition, his research was based solely on observational studies, and perhaps most importantly, he also failed to mention the explosion in the cigarette industry that happened around the same time. However, regardless of these serious omissions, the study caught the attention of the American senate, and the rest, as they say, is history. Ever since then, fat’s been trying to make its rightfully deserved comeback.

And it seems the ‘fat shaming era’ may be facing a turn around. In response to the growing prevalence of metabolic health conditions, traditional dietary management paradigms are being challenged. Studies have increasingly demonstrated that reducing carbohydrate intake, rather than fat, leads to greater improvements in health, specifically in glycaemic control, weight loss, and insulin sensitivity. And it’s these improvements that lower risk of disease, specifically heart disease.

Of the 3 macronutrients (protein, carbohydrates and fat), it is only carbohydrates that are non-essential for human life. Humans could not function properly for more than a few days without eating fat, and muscle wastage and malnutrition would occur in only a few months without protein. But avoiding carbohydrates has absolutely no short- or long-term negative effect on humans… other than the effect of weight loss.

Yes, we need glucose, but the body has a perfectly well functioning in-house glucose manufacturing plant. Glucose can be produced by the liver from fat and protein in the diet and does not need to be ingested as carbohydrates. In fact, it’s FAT that is the body’s preferred fuel source.

Our bodies digest the food we eat by mixing it with fluids (acids and enzymes) in the stomach. When the stomach digests food, the carbohydrate (sugars and starches) in the food breaks down into another type of sugar, called glucose. The stomach and small intestines absorb the glucose and then release it into the bloodstream. Enter insulin! Under the action of insulin (a hormone released by the pancreas), glucose is either used immediately as an energy fuel or stored in the liver and muscles. Any carbohydrate that cannot be used immediately must be converted to fat – first in the liver before being transported to the fat tissues as storage. Over time, with a constant influx of carbohydrates and sugar, requiring a constant outflux of insulin, cells start becoming resistant to the effects of insulin. This means less glucose is absorbed, more glucose is converted to fat, glucose in the blood starts to rise and the body enters a pre-diabetic state.

So, after a very long explanation, the short answer here is: fat is fuel. By shifting your body away from a reliance on carbohydrates, and more towards fat, your body becomes not only leaner and healthier, but also more efficient.

But here is the thing. Not all fat is created equal. Animal fat plays a critical part in overall health because it is considered ‘real food’. It is nutrient dense and unprocessed, which means your body can maximise its use of it. Vegetable and seed oils (sunflower oil, canola oil, rapeseed etc) on the other hand, are highly processed, and as a result, are highly inflammatory.

All animal fats contain fat-soluble vitamins such as vitamin D (important for bone health and immune function) and vitamin E (a potent antioxidant). Unlike beef and lamb fat, which are higher in saturated fats, pork fat contains a different composition of monounsaturated fats (MUFAs) and saturated fats. In fact, pork lard is rich in oleic acid, the same healthy fat found in olive oil, making up approximately 45–50% of its fatty acid content (interestingly, pork fat was ranked 8^th on the BBCs 2020 list of the world’s most nutritious foods!).

One more point about the value of fat in the diet… fat is what adds flavour and satiety to food, and/or a meal. Eat more fat, and you’ll feel less hungry. Feel less hungry and you’ll eat less food.

Once you take the fat away from a product, like yoghurt as an example, you need to replace it with something else to ensure it remains palatable. So what’s the most common thing added to “fat free” food? Sugar! It’s these added sugars that start to creep up on you without you thinking too much about it. You may cut back on the sugar you add to your tea or coffee, but what about the added sugars you consume with that crème soda, rice, pasta, tomato sauce and convenience meals? Do yourself a favour, start checking your labels!

Athletes are traditionally told to carb-load. But you’re working with some who are flipping the script. Can you tell us about the studies or case studies The Noakes Foundation is doing with athletes and pork? (please feel free to reword this question to better suit)

It’s true, chapters are dedicated to carbs in most athletic publications, but as the science is filtering out, athletes are changing their tune… and their fuel. As many athletes begin to experiment with a low carbohydrate approach, they are experiencing sustained energy, metabolic efficiency and dietary resilience.

The research we are conducting with this population is in 2 parts. The first part, which was recently completed, aimed to understand how pork is positioned within performance nutrition, especially in the context of low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) or alternative dietary patterns. The second part, to be completed later this year, will investigate whether athletes who include pork as their primary protein source receive any additional health or performance benefits.

Here is a summary of results from our discussions with both coaches and athletes:

Among coaches, a strong emphasis was placed on personalized nutrition. While some employed structured plans involving macronutrient tracking and performance periodisation, others took a more informal approach, tailoring advice based on experience, athlete feedback, and practicality. Personalisation was viewed as essential, yet several coaches noted that barriers such as limited access to sports dietitians, financial constraints, and inconsistent athlete motivation limited the ability to implement optimal nutrition plans across the board. In terms of knowledge, coaches varied in their training backgrounds. Some had formal education in sports nutrition, while others relied heavily on non-traditional sources such as YouTube, podcasts, and personal experimentation. There was also a noticeable scepticism toward conventional dietary guidelines, with some coaches expressing concerns about industry bias and outdated science.

Pork was widely recognised by coaches as a valuable source of animal protein, especially lean cuts like pork loin or fillet. Animal protein overall was considered superior to plant-based sources for muscle repair, strength development, and recovery. However, pork’s inclusion in diet plans was inconsistent. While some coaches appreciated pork’s nutritional profile, others cited concerns about its fat content or referenced cultural and religious sensitivities that made pork less acceptable in diverse team environments. Many preferred recommending chicken or beef due to perceptions of these being “cleaner” or more familiar. When discussing fats, coaches overwhelmingly leaned toward recommending traditional animal fats such as butter or tallow over industrial seed oils, citing health concerns related to inflammation and omega-6 fatty acid imbalances.

Athletes echoed many of these sentiments but also introduced new layers of complexity. Across the board, athletes described a wide range of dietary patterns, including carnivore, LCHF, ketogenic, intermittent fasting, and more intuitive or culturally influenced eating approaches. Dietary decisions were often shaped by personal health goals, life experiences, family influence, or ethical beliefs. Many athletes reported having little formal nutritional guidance, instead turning to online influencers and platforms like YouTube for advice. Names like Tim Noakes, Ken Berry, and Paul Saladino came up frequently, alongside a strong emphasis on lived experience as a trusted source of truth. While some athletes acknowledged the risks of misinformation, many still prioritized what had worked for them personally over conventional guidelines.

When it came to pork, athletes were divided. Some regularly included pork in their diets, especially bacon, rashers, or pork belly, describing it as tasty, satisfying, and calorie-dense, which was particularly valued in strength-building or bulking phases. Others, however, avoided pork altogether. The reasons ranged from digestive discomfort and affordability concerns to perceptions of pork being “unclean” or culturally inappropriate. Lean pork was rarely mentioned as a staple protein, with chicken and fish seen as safer, more versatile options, particularly among endurance athletes. Still, many athletes did express a willingness to include pork more regularly if presented with credible information about its nutritional benefits and performance relevance.

Both groups, coaches and athletes, showed a marked preference for animal fats over vegetable and seed oils. Olive oil, butter, and tallow were consistently described as healthier choices, while margarine and vegetable oils were viewed with scepticism. This preference aligns with growing interest in metabolically supportive diets like LCHF, which many participants felt contributed to improved energy, recovery, and body composition. Supplementation was also common, with many athletes and coaches mentioning the use of whey protein, creatine, collagen, and omega-3s to fill nutritional gaps and support performance.

Perhaps most encouragingly, most of the coaches and athletes expressed openness to learning and change. While many participants had deeply entrenched dietary habits, there was a general willingness to reconsider assumptions and adapt practices if presented with strong, science-backed evidence that was directly relevant to their goals. This represents an exciting opportunity for future engagement.

We’re big believers in the ‘farm to fork’ story. How important is the quality of the pork – how it’s raised, processed and sourced – in determining its health benefits?

In a word, very. You want to choose animal proteins that are the most naturally raised, minimally processed and fed the highest quality feed. You know the old saying, “you are what you eat”? Same goes for animals. This is particularly important for the fat content of the animal. All animal fat contains varying degrees of Omega fatty acids. Omega 3 fatty acids are heart healthy and anti-inflammatory, while Omega 6 fatty acids are the opposite: highly inflammatory. So you’d want to ensure you are maximising the Omega 3s, and minimising the Omega 6’s – its this ratio that can tip the scales from health to harm.

Studies investigating this ratio in pork fat have found that pigs fed solely on grain have the highest concentrations of Omega 6. One study done in the US (**I am not a feed expert so I don’t know if this same association would be true for SA) compared the Omega 3 quantity in pork in 3 different feed groups (1. All grain, 2. 50% grain, 50% forage, 3. All forage) and found that Omega-3 fatty acid concentration was greatest in the grain-free group, intermediate in the 50% grain group and lowest in the 100% grain group. This study also found that the grain-free group incurred the greatest costs and took the longest to finish. While the 50% grain group resulted in the lowest costs. These findings suggest that feeding 50% grain (and 50% forage) may be ideal for reducing feed costs and achieving a fatty acid profile that could bring a higher price for pork based on consumer preference.

But ‘free range’ pork comes with its own set of challenges, not least the cost. For this reason, it is possible to keep a healthy Omega 3:6 ratio by increasing your intake of healthy Omega 3s – either with a supplement, but preferably with natural sources, such as fatty fish, avocado, almonds and macadamia nuts.

The protein game is crowded. Why should someone who’s lifting weights or training hard consider pork over, say, chicken breast or whey protein shakes?

Great question, I think I have covered the metabolic health aspect, but one of the biggest misconceptions is that pork (again, the single brush) is a “fatty protein”, and as such will cause weight gain, particularly for someone who is wanting to smash a PB either on the road or the weights section. So here is something to chew on… There have been 3 randomized clinical trials that specifically addressed the impact of pork meat on body composition. In all 3, results have shown that lean pork meat consumption is a viable protein for weight and body fat loss. One of these compared 140g/day of chicken to 150g of pork and 150g of beef and found no differences in body mass index, body fat percentage, fat mass, abdominal fat, lean mass, waist circumference and hip circumference when comparing the pork group with the beef or chicken diet group.

If you could debunk one pork-related myth right now – what would it be?

 The belief that pork is “unclean”. This misconception is rooted more in cultural, historical, and religious traditions than in modern science. In some religions pork is prohibited for spiritual and scriptural reasons, often relating to ancient concerns about food safety in hot climates where pork spoiled easily. These traditions are respected and observed for faith-based reasons, but they don’t reflect the current scientific understanding of pork’s nutritional value or cleanliness.

In reality, modern pork is a safe, nutritious, and high-quality source of protein. Thanks to strict farming, hygiene, and food safety standards, South African pork is carefully raised, processed, and inspected to ensure it’s clean and safe to eat. When cooked properly, pork is no more “unclean” than chicken or beef. The outdated idea that pork is dirty or inherently harmful doesn’t hold up to current evidence and should not deter people from including pork in a healthy diet (unless they choose to avoid it for personal or religious reasons).

Are there specific cuts of pork you’d recommend for people trying to eat clean, train hard, and stay lean?

Any cut that you prefer… Of course each cut has its own ‘personality’ and taste profile.

For those who aren’t yet sold on embracing fat in their diet, lean cuts are still going to give you the same quality protein as beef or chicken would. And for those who have gone the ‘whole hog’ and discovered the benefits of a low carbohydrate, high fat lifestyle, go ahead with anything your taste buds might fancy.

South Africans love a braai. Any thoughts on how cooking methods impact pork’s nutritional value? Is there a best or worst way? Has the advent of the air fryer made a difference?

Unfortunately, a lot of nutrients are heat sensitive, so cooking methods can make a difference. Most research is done on veggies, but there was a study done with pork that showed that slow cooking pork in a bag, or preparing it as a roast, seemed to retain more nutrients than the same cut that was braised. This suggests that air frying might just be the perfect solution as it allows for a shorter cooking time, without the potential for nutrient loss in any liquid.

You’re doing important work at The Noakes Foundation in fighting the battle against chronic disease. How does pork fit into a preventative health model?

At The Noakes Foundation, we’re deeply committed to tackling chronic diseases through evidence-based, preventative approaches. One of the most powerful tools we have is food: real, whole food, and educating people about the impact their daily choices can have on long-term health. We are also about getting back to the basics – cutting through all the noise about “low fat” this, “added vitamins and minerals” that and “try me I’m new” that line the check out counters. We’re trying to shift the dietary paradigm back to a simple approach: eat fresh, whole, protein rich, and nutrient dense foods.

Nutritionally, pork is an excellent source of complete protein, rich in essential amino acids needed for muscle maintenance, immune function, and tissue repair. It’s also packed with key micronutrients which play crucial roles in energy metabolism and reducing oxidative stress, two key factors in the development of chronic conditions like type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. As I said, pork is a great source of good fats and oleic acid, making it a valuable alternative to processed seed oils and other highly refined fats that are commonly linked to chronic inflammation.

In a South African context, where affordability and accessibility matter deeply, pork also represents a cost-effective source of high-quality nutrition alongside more popular choices in this category such as chicken. The latest SAPPO statistics list pork at an average retail price of R117.70/kg compared to chicken at R69.47/kg,  beef at R138.35/kg and lamb at R178.52/kg. So, when we talk about preventing chronic disease through dietary change, pork can be part of the solution. It’s about re-educating the public, challenging outdated myths, and empowering people with evidence-based choices that are both sustainable and satisfying.

Quick-fire time!

•  Bacon or boerie? Bacon (obvs)
• Loin chops or ribs? Ribs…. Without the sticky (sugary) sauce!
• Braai or oven roast? I am a braai gal but an oven roast on a cold day is the winner for me

And finally… if you could shout one message from the top of Table Mountain about pork and nutrition, what would it be?

Eat real, whole foods and don’t fear the fat. It’s the processed food on your plate that will make you fat and sick, not the pork.