Skip to main content

Does Eating Pork Affect Your Life Span?

I am sure many of you must have seen the YouTube video on the right which has garnered over 4,000,000 views (as of April 2013) since it was first uploaded by a Saudi Arabian Muslim in May 2007. This video claims that if you pour Coke onto pork, you can see worms crawling out of the meat after approx. 2 hours. But is it really true?

This video on the right, however, tells a different story altogether. Purportedly produced by a doctor working at one of John Hopkins University's research labs, it claims that the "Coke + Pork" videos on YouTube are mere propaganda that are being spread by the dairy industry in an attempt to halt the booming growth of the world's pork industry. Who then is right and who then is wrong?

Pork-And-Coke Experiment: Verify It Yourself!

Fortunately for us, we do not need to trust anyone as we can very easily repeat this very simple experiment and see the results with our own eyes. Just go and buy a slab of pork from your regular supplier and a bottle of Coke. Pour the Coke onto the pork and wait for 2 hours to confirm the first video and you will know with great certainty who is telling the truth. Test the pork as soon as possible after you have purchased it. Needless to say, if you leave the pork in the open for 2 days, I would be surprised if there are no maggots!!!

As a pork-eater, I did just that, as it is to my interest to know the truth. And the result? I saw no worms under a magnifying glass.

The Original Coke-on-Pork Video That Started It All

Uploader of Original Pork-and-Coke Video Admits Video Hoax

Tobuscus, the person who started the Coke, Pork, and Worms video spree when he uploaded his video in Metacafe, has claimed that his video was a hoax and a joke that was directed at his room-mate.

I all started when his roommate told him that she never ate pork because "when you pour Coke on it, worms come out." After laughing at her, he told her that he was going to prove her wrong with a video. He then made the video on the right and after she watched it, she said, "NOW do you believe me?!"

Tobuscus did not expect anyone else would buy it, but people started reposting his video. It was featured on Break, Ebaumsworld, Myspace, and maybe some others, receiving 3 million views in the first week from these sites alone, apart from another half a million views on YouTube.

Pork-Eating: The Malaysian Experience

Malaysia is a country with 50% Malays, 24% Chinese, 7% Indians, and 19% Others. Practically all Chinese Malaysians (as with all Chinese throughout the world) eat pork. All ethnic Malays are considered Muslim by law of the Constitution and are therefore pork-abstainers. Indian Malaysians, on the other hand, are mixed in that some eat pork, while others don't, depending on their caste.

The below table was prepared by the Malaysian Department of Statistics. What do these figures tell us? In the year 2000, life expectancy in Malaysia, based on race, were as follows:

  • Chinese - 76.6 years;
  • Malays - 72.6 years;
  • Indians - 72.4 years.

As you can see, year after year from 1957 (when Malaysia gained independence from the British) until 2000, the pork-eating Chinese have had a longer life expectancy than the pork-abstaining Malays. These figures should serve as an eye-opener. (It would have been interesting to analyze the Indian Malaysian experience but unfortunately, statistics of the number of pork-eaters vs pork-abstainers are not available.) If anything, it seems obvious clear that as far as life expectancy is concerned, being born a male is more fatal than eating pork.

Life Expectancy In Muslim And Non-Muslim Countries

Wikipedia has a list of country-by-country life expectancy prepared by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) for the period, 2005-2010. Of the list of 198 countries, the United Arab Emirates, the best Muslim country in terms of life expectancy, comes in at No. 52, while Saudi Arabia managed only No. 88. Israel, another pork-abstaining nation, on the other hand, comes in at No. 9. What does these figures tell us?

Pork chop

Pork chop

Am I Then Saying That Pork Is Healthy?

Far from it!!! Pork is known to carry some diseases such as pork tapeworm and trichinosis and thus, uncooked or undercooked pork can be dangerous to consume. Is it any wonder, then, that pork is never eaten raw or medium rare?

The United States' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says:

"In the United States, trichinellosis cases are reported to CDC much less commonly now than in the past. During the late 1940s, when the U.S. Public Health Service began counting cases of trichinellosis, 400 cases in the United States were recorded each year on average. During 2008-2010, 20 cases were reported to CDC each year on average. The overall number of cases reported has decreased because of improved pig-raising practices in the pork industry, commercial and home freezing of pork, and public awareness of the danger of eating raw or undercooked meat products."

Scroll to Continue

In the mind of most people, pork is usually associated with high levels of cholesterol, as compared to, say, beef, but is it really true? According to the website, a 3-1/2 oz serving of beef sirloin contains 89 mg of cholesterol, while a serving of pork chop contains 85 mg. Lamb foreshank, on the other hand, contains 106 mg of cholesterol per 3-1/2 oz. serving. What about white meat chicken, then? You may be surprised that white meat chicken contains more cholesterol than lean ground beef and pork tenderloin, and it has the same amount of cholesterol as a serving of pork chop! In the final analysis, the actual amount of cholesterol in a serving of pork depends on the cut, and how it's prepared.

So if you are asking whether pork is less healthy than either beef or mutton, my question is: "Who ask you to eat undercooked pork?" Would you eat pufferfish without first removing its toxic parts?

Is Pork an Unhealthy "Dirty Meat" You Should Avoid?


Me on July 16, 2015:

Go Chris!

KenWu from Malaysia on August 28, 2013:

I eat pork but that depends on how it is cooked. But nowadays, I try to cut off meats whenever I can. At least when I am not dining out with families.

The Chris does have an agenda!

Poon Poi Ming (author) from Malaysia on June 08, 2013:

Chris is acting like he has a personal mission or agenda. What could that be? Owner of a big cattle ranch?

Debra Allen from West Virginia on June 08, 2013:

Thanks Walter!

Chris, there are many foods that lower cholesterol. Many the Pharms don't want us to know about or use versus their chemicals.

Put it this way--I will eat what I want, in how much I want, and I will take care of MY body that was GIVEN/MADE for me and I will die when I die.

Poon Poi Ming (author) from Malaysia on June 08, 2013:

I've just added a section, entitled: "Uploader of Original Pork-and-Coke Video Admits Video Hoax". This incident shows how gullible people are!

Chris on June 07, 2013:

...Continued from directly above...

I checked out your link, which then linked to (the source of the study).

It mentions:

"Consumption of red meat has been found to increase the risk of death from heart disease, even when controlling for levels of fat and cholesterol2. To find out why, Hazen and his colleagues gave the nutrient L-carnitine — found in red meat and dairy products — to 77 volunteers, including 26 who were vegans or vegetarians. One committed vegan even agreed to eat a 200-gram sirloin steak.

Tests showed that consuming L-carnitine increased blood levels of trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO), a compound that, evidence suggests, can alter the metabolism of cholesterol and slow the removal of cholesterol that accumulates on arteries' walls."

It seems quite convincing except for the fact that no study conducted to see if other foods are able to reverse, or counter act this risk.

Also, was this regular beef (i.e. depleted of omega 3), or from grass fed, free range meat (high in omega 3)? It doesn't say.

Also, cholesterol is very seldom the cause of heart disease and there are FAR greater causes than cholesterol. It may not even be a cause at all. (cholesterol in an essential substance to the human body and the body only used it to repair arteries when it doesn't have enough collagen for repair which is caused by a Vitamin C defficiency.) More common causes include Niacin (Vitamin B3) defficiency -


Debra Allen from West Virginia on June 07, 2013:

What the heck is your problem Chris??? How do you think they get their research?....from a box of cherrios or something. MILK is also very bad to some people.

Billrrrrr, you are correct.

All: Everyone has the potential to get sick from anything from the air, to the water, to meats and even vegetables. That does NOT mean everyone will get the same diseases or afflictions.

Chris on June 07, 2013:

So he goes and actually adds the poll! I can't believe it!!! Watch out Scientific American, here comes some real research from Walter's poll!!!

Yet you don't accept the research I qoute that is done by the University of Florida and published on the website of the US government's National Institute of Health!!!

Of course too much of anything is bad, but that does not mean moderate amounts are bad, except when it comes to some things like pork. You are exaggerating about most of what you say, all these foods you claim to be dangerous are far safer and healthier if they are eaten organic. However organic, 'free range' pork, is not much safer and is actually more dangerous when organic (when it comes to trichinosis parasites). It allows them to be a filthy as they like with little control over their behavior while they have 'free range'. They are so full of parasites, bacteria and toxins that they trump almost any other animal.

As I have explained toxins cannot be destroyed by cooking.

What in red meat causes heart disease, besides fat and cholesterol?

Please do indulge us!!!

Poon Poi Ming (author) from Malaysia on June 07, 2013:

Okay, I've added a poll. To be sure, every food has positive and negative effects on our health, including eggs and white foods, such as flour, white rice, sugar, salt, and potatoes. "Consumption of red meat has been found to increase the risk of death from heart disease, even when controlling for levels of fat and cholesterol", says Scientific American. So what's there left to eat?

But the question is: "Why is Chris on a crusade against pork-eating? Is he a Muslim or Jew?"

Chris on June 07, 2013:

"HOW MANY WHO READ THIS EAT PORK AND ARE NOT SICK?? COME ON NOW TELL US. Walter you should add a poll on here and see the answers." - If that is your idea of scientific research you should be laughed all the way out of here! This just shows the type of research you consider to be reliable!!! PATHETIC!!!

Poon Poi Ming (author) from Malaysia on June 06, 2013:

Avoid white food (flour, salt, sugar, rice, potatoes), refined food, baked food, deep fried food, processed food, packaged food, canned food, ... what's left? Pesticide-enhanced vegetables!

Bill Russo from Cape Cod on June 06, 2013:

The bottom line is, "eating anything is bad for you".

That said: "Eating Nothing IS Worse".

Debra Allen from West Virginia on June 06, 2013:

I watched a documentary a week ago about Dolphins and it is it was telling us about how poisonous that meat was and that Japan is poisoning their people with it. What it also said was that it was mercury poisoning and the reason Dolphin meat was the worst was because each fish that is in the oceans get the mercury per size of the fish with the largest eating the smallest and on up to the biggest fish. The bigger the fish the largest amount of mercury poisoning.

Poon Poi Ming (author) from Malaysia on June 06, 2013:

Pamela, do you eat fish? What does fish eat?

Pamela N Red from Oklahoma on June 06, 2013:

I somehow missed the worm videos.

I stopped eating pork a couple of years a go because eating carnivorous animals is carcinogenic. I love the taste and wish it was healthy but unfortunately, it is not.

Debra Allen from West Virginia on June 06, 2013:

Add to it what country they are from too. You would get more visitors to boot!

Debra Allen from West Virginia on June 06, 2013:


Walter you should add a poll on here and see the answers.

Chris on June 06, 2013:

The term 'may' is very commonly used in the scientific research world.

If you had read more studies like these you would have noticed that by now.

The reasons vary, but even when the results of a study clearly show a certain outcome it's usually common for researchers conclude with the term "may" because often researchers can only state outcomes with certainty once MANY more, similar studies, have been conducted that come to similar conclusions. They usually err on the side of caution until there is such overwhelming evidence that it can not longer be doubted even in the slightest. I can link to many examples of this if you don't believe me, but if you look at the statistical outcomes of the study in the graphs displayed, you will see that pork IS even more strongly associated with alcoholic cirrhosis than alcohol itself. It's very clear from the graphs.

It is also not that easy to compare something like pork to alcohol when it comes to deciding which are more likely to cause liver cirhossis. For example how would you decide how much pork is equal to how much much alcohol as far as how dangerous each one is. It's like comparing apples to banannas, but the point is, at the very least, they are both a definite cause in liver cirhossis and almost the same as far as their ability to cause cirhossis.

This is the last time I am going to tell you that the article I linked to used studies that relied on STATISTICS as refeences.

Are you not able to understand what that means?

Combine all the dieseases caused by pork together and you will see just how sick it is making the world!!!

I have already discussed what Lady Guinevere said.

There are many different diseases related to pork consumption that do not kill people. Have you ever met anyone who died of flu?

Even liver cirhossis is not a major cause of death in most countries, but rates of liver cirhossis are much higher in those countries that consume a lot of pork and even higher in those consume a lot of pork AND alcohol - together they are even more likely to cause cirrhosis. (see the statistical graphs I was referring to above.) It also depends on how much pork you consume - there are many factors involved.

Beef is protective and so that complicates this further depending on how much beef you consume with your pork, but the statistics are clear - no matter how much you chose to ignore them:

Pork is NOT safe!!!

Poon Poi Ming (author) from Malaysia on June 06, 2013:

QUOTE: "The article stated : "Startlingly, pork may be even MORE strongly associated with alcoholic cirrhosis than alcohol itself!"

Chris, I wonder whether you know how to read. If you should highlight any word, that word should be "may", as in: "Startlingly, pork MAY be even more strongly associated with alcoholic cirrhosis than alcohol itself!"

If you write a thesis with the word, "may" as your conclusion, you will definitely fail your thesis. The word "may" is meaningless. In this world, everything is also "may". I can say I MAY become a millionaire tomorrow and you can't say I'm wrong. There MAY be a World War III coming next year and you, too, cannot say I am wrong, until next year passes.

There are more pork eaters than pork abstainers in this world and why is it that we do not, as Lady Guinevere ask, see a whole lot of people who are sick or dead because of it? Prove us wrong with some statistics, please, instead of making general statements.

Chris on June 06, 2013:

My comment above was a reply to "Lady Guinevere".

Walter, go and read the SOURCES of the information presented in the article, some of which I have linked to in my reply to Lady Guinevere above. I suggest you read them. You are in denial. You have looked at some statistics on life expectancy of one country.

Of course the article doesn't discuss "life expectancy", that is the whole point. Life expectancy is not accurate enough in measuring the dangers of eating pork versus those who do not eat pork. The studies I have linked to are MUCH more accurate as a measure of the dangers of pork consumption.

Additionally, you can't compare mad cow disease to those diseases which are INSEPARABLE from pigs. 99% of beef contains no mad cow disease, but diseases from pigs are common and widespread and range from flu, to those discussed in the link I posted to. Far more people are affected by these diseases than from mad cow disease. Even when it comes to bird flu you will find that it originates from ducks, not chickens. Then there are the rats, ferrel cats and other scavengers easten in the East.

What is more important than lifespan?

How about health!!!

Your people in the East are making the whole world sick!

All because you fail to understand that some animals were put here to clean up the planet as scavengers and these are NOT the ones created for human consumption.

Chris on June 06, 2013:

You really should learn how to read.

Nowehere was it stated that "alcohol consumption was not a factor in the disease".

The article stated : "Startlingly, pork may be even MORE strongly associated with alcoholic cirrhosis than alcohol itself!"

It also stated: "Here is the relation between alcohol consumption and mortality from liver cirrhosis: [graph]. The correlation coefficient is LOWER than for pork consumption."

It stated: "In countries with LOW alcohol consumption, no correlation was obtained between alcohol consumption and cirrhosis."

There ARE a whole lot of people sick, but the problem is that the connection to pork is rarely even realised when people die from pork related diseases as the diseases often have other more well known causes. Pork consumption, or exposure, can lead to anything from arthritis, to diarrhea, to flu, to multiple sclerosis, to cirrhosis of the liver, to liver cancer - and that's just the start!!!

I doubt the researchers at the University of West Florida has made a mistake!!! -

(International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2009, September)


(The Lancet. 1985, Mar 23 - one of the most respected medical journals in the world)

Poon Poi Ming (author) from Malaysia on June 05, 2013:

QUOTE: "The relatively high omega-6 fat content of pork MAY be a contributing factor, but it can't be the whole story. It SEEMS there is SOMETHING ELSE (what?) in pork that makes pork consumption risky." - Psychology Today

Generally-speaking, therefore, people who consume pork have longer life span. "What kind of logic is that?!!!", as you say. Now you understand why I didn't want to read it at first? Because it was not talking about how it affects life span, the crux of the discussion of this hub. Not even a single statistics was produced in that article, and all it talks about is vague generalities. And by the way, is liver cirrhosis one of the major causes of death in this world?

Poon Poi Ming (author) from Malaysia on June 05, 2013:

The evidence is so clear that in every census, Muslims in Malaysia have shorter lifespan than non-Muslims, and with Israel as a mono-ethnic and developed country not being among the top 5 countries with the longest life span, you still want to argue... unless you can show proof that they are half-dying. Death is the ultimate consequence, if any food is unhealthy. And if lifespan is not important, what is? And may I ask you back the same question: "What kind of logic is that?!!!"

Poon Poi Ming (author) from Malaysia on June 05, 2013:

Chris, when I look around and see that Muslims are no healthier than non-Muslims, that is enough for me. If I were to listen to all the experts on slip disc, I would have gone and done my op. As it is today, I'm fine and even two of my orthopedic doctor were amazed. On the other hand, I do hear many people having problems after their ops, like having backache in air-conditioned rooms, not to mention those who have clipped nerves that left them paralyzed.

Pigs are not the only animals that present health problems. Cows have mad cow diseases and chicken have bird flu. Even vegetables these days have high levels of pesticides. If you don't want to look at the overall picture, just point me one food and I will tell you why you should not eat it.

Debra Allen from West Virginia on June 05, 2013:

Hey Chris, if that were so then there would be a whole lot of people who are sick or dead. Cirrhosis of the liver is caused by alcohol abuse. I read that article and I don't know where they got most of their data. It must have been a small number of people. It said that alcohol consumption was not a factor in the disease---that is NOT true. My uncle died of that disease and he was an alcoholic.

Chris on June 05, 2013:

You obviously have not idea how real research works.

You say: "I don't even agree with what you are saying, so why would I even bother to scrutinize what you termed as "reputable references"

What kind of logic is that?!!!

(i.e. Don't study someones references because you don't agree with what they are saying.) Of course: "there are websites that support or object to everything." - that's precisely why you need to look at their references - and when the references from studies on different sites disagree, then you need to scrutinise the the quality of the studies and determine which ones are more reliable. This is how proper research works. I would scrutinise the studies that reject accupuncture if I were you and see if there is any truth to them. I suspect accupuncture works better than the mainstream claims, but haven't studied it too deeply yet. I am not actually against alternative medicine, which includes traditional Chinese medicine which western studies are now increasingly showing the benefits of.

Why are you still going on about life-span, when life span is almost USELESS in determining the dangers of pork, for reasons I have repeatedly explained on here. To expand on that, due the development of modern western medicine, one thing that it HAS got right is saving peoples lives in emergency situations and improving life expectancies despite all the terrible diseases that exist.

You say: "You talk as if you know better why non-Muslims live a longer life-span". I DO NOT KNOW BETTER WHY THIS IS THE CASE. I never said that I know why - as it DOESN'T MATTER why - because there are so many possibilities it is not even funny. That is why I gave so many examples of what CAN affect life expectancy. Do you even read half of what I write?

The onus is on YOU to prove that the life expectancy discussed in your sources is a valid way to determine the dangers of eating pork, or a result of eating pork, etc.

The onus is on YOU to prove that the references I linked to on that website are not reliable.

This is how research and scientific debate work.

Poon Poi Ming (author) from Malaysia on June 05, 2013:

Chris, I don't even agree with what you are saying, so why would I even bother to scrutinize what you termed as "reputable references". To be sure, in every discussion, there are websites that support or object to everything.

Acupuncture has been derided for centuries, but it was acupuncture that saved me from a major operation. You talk as if you know better why non-Muslims live a longer life-span, without even attempting to give one shred of evidence to support what you are saying. If you disagree with my last sentence, just point out which sentence in your long post said that?

Chris on June 05, 2013:

Baptism and the use of water is purely symbolic.

Lady Guinevere, you obviously never clicked on the first link I posted as it proves there are many other serious conditions caused by pork consumption that CANNOT be avoided by cooking and - HEAT which by the way has been available to ancient people for millenia without the need of modern technology like microwave ovens which by the way don't cook that evenly.

You obviously know absolutely nothing about the origins of the influenza virus before it spreads from humans to humans. I suggest you go study influenza in more detail.

Walter you said: "How do you explain the fact that given the SAME living conditions and environment, the pork abstainers are having a shorter life span?" - Do you even know that for sure?

There are many different things that affect lifespan that you may not even be considering and many of those who do get diseases from pork may not die from those diseases meaning life expectrancy stats of those people wouldn't be affected that much by eating pork, despite how sick it can make them. Life expectancy statistics are a RIDICULOUS way to measure the dangers of eating pork and even in a SINGLE country different people die for different reasons (eg. poor diet, sexual promiscuity, DNA, lack of exercise, types of hazardous professions, proximity to earthquake and mudslide areas, etc, etc, etc.) My example of Israel may have been poor, as Palestinian deaths far outnumber Israelis, but it was just an example.

I suggest you both read the first link I posted and scrutinise the reputable references.

Poon Poi Ming (author) from Malaysia on June 04, 2013:

Lady Guinevere, you are right about pork. Different parts have its own unique taste. That was also what a Muslim army major once told me, LOL. Another Muslim army major went alone to eat bacon sandwich and was so happy that he recommended it to all his Muslim friends, saying it was the tastiest meat he had ever eaten. When his friend told him that bacon is pork, he insisted that ham is pork, but not bacon. Imagine how embarrassed he was, when he found out the truth! In Islam, if you don't know it's pork, there's no sin.

As regards baptism, I don't know anything about it. But the lotus flower is cherished in Buddhism for its ability to be unaffected by muddy and dirty environments.

Debra Allen from West Virginia on June 04, 2013:

Oh my hub was on the Baptizing in "pure" waters. I wasn't pure then and is even less pure now.

I eat pork and I love it. Yes it is tastier, more tender and more juicier and there are just as many recipes for it then there is for chicken or beef.

Poon Poi Ming (author) from Malaysia on June 04, 2013:

Lady Guinevere, thanks for your explanation of Laviticus. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I don't see pork abstainers as any healthier than the pork eaters in Malaysia, a country where 50.4% of the population are Muslims. It's a nice comparison: half Muslims and half non-Muslims.

As for your hub on pork, this hub also garners a relatively low traffic, as compared to my other hubs. I guess it's the topic. Who really cares whether pork is healthy or not? Their experience and their parents' and grandparent's experience of eating pork tell them that there's no cause for worry.

Debra Allen from West Virginia on June 04, 2013:

I forgot about one other cooking method that eradicates unclean things...the microwave.

Debra Allen from West Virginia on June 04, 2013:

Good grief Chris. I think this unhealthy pork eating is mainly from the Bible in which it states, in Laviticus no less, that you shall not eat anything with cloven hooves/unclean animals. That book and that law was written way before there were stoves that regulated heat, refrigerators that cooled things and freezers that froze things. It was also written way before they ever knew what triccinosis (sp) or tape worms were or where they even came from. Yes I did a hub on the dirty water that everyone stepped in, brought their dirty feet from the places they defecated in or urinated it or the sand which harbored nasty unseen things. That same water they drank from. Yes it was gross to write, but people need to know the truth about why those laws were enacted and why they don't have any bearrance to today. The hub is down because it didn't get as many views as I thought that it would. I will be moving it to my blogger at some point in time.

About the Flu virus, Chris, you have your information wrong.

Poon Poi Ming (author) from Malaysia on June 04, 2013:

Chris, how many suicide bombers are there in Israel, if I may know. 10% of the population? And why did you conveniently forget about the statistics on Malaysia where there are no suicide bomber? How do you explain the fact that given the same living conditions and environment, the pork abstainers are having a shorter life span?

Chris on June 04, 2013:

You should know that you can't determine the dangers of eating pork by merely looking at life expectancy. You compare Israel, for example to other countries. Maybe their life expectancy is shorter due to suicide bombers! Who knows.

There are many things that affect life expectancy, but only a few that cause cirrhosis of the liver - pork and alcohol being some of the few and pork being a stronger cause. Heat sensitive, living organisms like parasites and bacteria are only half the problem when it comes to pork. Non living, inorganic toxins in pork are the other half and are responsible for Liver cirrhosis, Liver cancer and even Multiple Sclerosis. Heat doesn't help with these. Liver transplants may help - and guess what - that new liver will help you live longer meaning an increase in life expectancy !!! See what I mean.

Is prok STILL dangerous for other reasons - YES!


Coming from Malaysia you should also know how most of the world's seasonal flu virus' comes from the different eastern countries and that these same eastern countries consume larger amounts of the "unclean" animals than in the west.

Poon Poi Ming (author) from Malaysia on May 31, 2013:

Hi Jared Miles, thank you for dropping by. Living in a Muslim-majority country where pork has always been claimed to be dirty and unhealthy, I've not seen Muslims to be any healthier than non-Muslims. And that sets me thinking...

Jared Miles from Australia on May 31, 2013:

You've done well here, especially to include concrete information, and remain unbiased throughout. Thanks for teaching me something about pork too; I'd never seen those 'Pork & Coke' videos, but now I know.

Poon Poi Ming (author) from Malaysia on May 06, 2013:

That's interesting. I can't find a good substitute for pork... chicken tastes too bland. Beef can be nice but it seems to taste all the same to me, while different cuts of the pork seem to have their own unique taste. Mutton can be very heaty. Actually, I eat all but lately, I have stopped eating beef when I suddenly stopped in my track one evening, while munching beef burger past the Goddess of Mercy altar on my way from the kitchen to my computer table. It was only after about a month later that I found out why I suddenly stopped. I didn't consciously stop. Something stopped me from passing directly in front of the Goddess of Mercy statue!

Kenneth Claude from Ohio on May 06, 2013:

Very interesting topic. I will take everyone's word on it, though, since I actually don't like pork anyway.

Bill Russo from Cape Cod on April 29, 2013:

Another great Hub Walter. Welcome to Hubpages. I look forward to reading more of your work.

Poon Poi Ming (author) from Malaysia on April 23, 2013:

Sounds like we are living in different worlds, LOL. I eat pork everyday because my wife doesn't like to cook, so she buys economy rice.

peachy from Home Sweet Home on April 23, 2013:

interesting , enjoyed reading. I eat pork on weekends because it is expensive to buy pork in supermarket. You know Jusco and Tesco-damn expensive. Wet market is much cheaper and fresh but seldom drop by, almost 5 years haven't visit the wet market!!!

Related Articles