Nutrient Content of Organ Meat vs Muscle Meat

If you zoom out and look at the human diet across cultures, climates and history, one pattern emerges again and again: animal protein sits at the center. 

Long before nutrition labels and dietary guidelines, people prioritized meat because it delivers what the human body fundamentally needs to survive and thrive: complete protein, bioavailable minerals, essential fats and energy.

That basic truth hasn’t changed. A diet anchored in animal protein remains one of the most reliable ways to support strength, metabolic health, cognitive function and long-term resilience.

Modern diets tend to narrow the definition of “meat” down to muscle meat alone — things like steaks, chops and ground beef — while quietly ignoring the rest of the animal. From a calorie and protein standpoint, that works fine. But from a micronutrient standpoint, it’s where nutritional gaps start to appear.

The bottom line is that you can eat plenty of high-quality muscle meat and still come up short on nutrients – not because muscle meat is unhealthy, but because it was never meant to be consumed in isolation.

Over the past year, our manufacturing partner commissioned comprehensive micronutrient testing on a wide range of bovine tissue, including liver, heart, kidney, spleen, and muscle meat such as ribeye. 

The goal wasn’t to crown a single “superfood,” but to better understand how different types of animal tissue actually contribute to a real human diet. 

What the data tells us is something traditional cultures seemed to understand intuitively: organ meat and muscle meat play different roles in a healthy diet, and health suffers when you remove either one.

How the testing was conducted

A team of researchers, led by Stephan van Vliet, PhD analyzed samples at the Food Metabolomics Lab at Utah State University. The researchers didn’t just look at a handful of vitamins and minerals; their testing covered fatty acids, fat-soluble and water-soluble vitamins, carotenoids, minerals, methyl donors, and other biologically relevant compounds like CoQ10 and choline.

Multiple types of bovine tissue samples were tested, and in several cases, multiple samples of the same tissue were analyzed to account for natural biological variability. 

This matters because organs — especially the liver — respond quickly to an animal’s nutritional status and environment.

It’s also important to clarify how the samples were prepared. The organ meats were analyzed in freeze-dried form, reflecting how they are commonly used in supplemental formats, while muscle meat benchmarks such as ribeye were analyzed in their fresh, as-consumed state. 

However, in order to facilitate an apples to apples comparison, the researchers measured moisture in all 600 muscle meat samples and then calculated the nutritional value on a dry-matter basis.  

To be completely fair, I should point out that freeze-dried beef organs retain about 5% moisture. In other words, we’ll have to take that into account when comparing the nutrients in freeze-dried beef organs to 100% dry muscle meat. 

What the micronutrient data revealed

The first thing that jumps out is how unevenly nutrients are distributed across meat types. Muscle meat is not “empty,” but it is relatively narrow in its micronutrient profile. Organ meats, by contrast, are dense, specialized, and complementary.

In other words, organ meat consistently contains substantially higher concentrations of many vitamins and minerals than muscle meat even when you take the 5% “margin of error” I referenced above into account. 

Here’s a simplified snapshot of some of the most relevant findings, comparing representative organ meat to muscle meat:

Key Micronutrients: Organs vs. Muscle Meat (per 100g freeze-dried)

Data source: Utah State University Food Metabolomics Lab analysis (Fall 2025). Organ values are from freeze-dried samples; ribeye values are moisture-adjusted to freeze-dried equivalents for direct comparison.

One pattern shows up again and again: organ meats consistently have more micronutrients than muscle meat. 

Liver dominates in B vitamins and Vitamin A. Heart is the primary source of CoQ10. Kidney leads for choline and betaine. Spleen is unmatched for iron.

Muscle meat, meanwhile, clusters toward the bottom for most micronutrients, with a few exceptions like niacin and potassium.

Nutrients that are limited or missing in muscle meat

Several nutrients stood out as either extremely low or functionally absent in muscle meat.

Choline is a clear example. It’s essential for neurotransmitter production, liver fat metabolism, and methylation, yet ribeye contains only about 13 mg/100g compared to the 55mg found in beef liver.

CoQ10 is another. Heart tissue concentrates this compound because of its role in mitochondrial energy production. Muscle meat contains very little by comparison (5 µg/100 g compared to a whopping 182.79 µg in bull heart), which becomes increasingly relevant as endogenous CoQ10 production declines with age.

Omega-3 fatty acids, including DHA, also trend higher in certain organs than in standard muscle cuts, particularly when animals are pasture-raised. While muscle meat contributes some fatty acids, it’s not where you’d look for meaningful DHA.

None of this means muscle meat is “bad.” It means it’s incomplete on its own.

Freeze-dried organ supplements versus fresh muscle meat

One question that comes up often is how freeze-dried organ supplements compare to fresh muscle meat. 

From a micronutrient perspective, properly freeze-dried organs retain most of the vitamins and minerals present in the raw tissue. Water is removed, nutrients are concentrated, and the underlying biochemical profile remains intact.

When you compare equal weights, freeze-dried organs look extreme. That’s because you’re effectively compressing a large amount of fresh organ tissue into a small serving.

Fresh organs absolutely provide these nutrients and have for thousands of years. Freeze-dried organs simply offer a modern way to access them consistently, without the sourcing, preparation, or taste barriers.

What freeze-dried organs don’t provide is meaningful energy. They are low in calories, fat, and total protein. They’re micronutrient tools, not meal replacements.

Why organs can’t replace muscle meat

This is where the conversation often goes sideways.

Organ meats are dense in vitamins and minerals. Some, such as the liver, even have plenty of carbohydrates (in the form of glycogen); the brain is an excellent source of fat, and the heart (which is technically a muscle) has plenty of protein. However, I don’t think it’s practical in our modern world to live exclusively off organ meats. 

That’s why I’d consider using muscle meat as the primary source of high-quality, complete protein; creatine that supports strength, power output, and cognitive function; and the calories and fat needed for hormonal health and recovery.

The case for using them together

When you step back, the conclusion becomes obvious.

Organs cover the micronutrient gaps muscle meat leaves behind. Muscle meat provides the macronutrients and functional compounds organs lack or aren’t practical to fill. Trying to replace one with the other can create problems that don’t need to exist.

Traditional diets didn’t separate these foods. They used the whole animal. Muscle meat formed the caloric backbone. Organs were used strategically to support fertility, growth, recovery, and resilience.

That model still works.

The foundation of optimal health isn’t choosing between steak and organs. It’s combining responsibly raised muscle meat with targeted organ intake, whether from fresh organs or high-quality freeze-dried supplements. Together, they form a diet that aligns with human physiology instead of fighting it.

Not better versus worse. Better together.