Cancer

Sapsorrow

TRy PUBMED or Science direct for reports, studies etc that are 100% reliable, scientific and very highly regulated for the most truthfull info. I love when my food choices (being vegetarian) are backed by hard conserative science!

Sapsorrow

No scientist would deny the link between cancer of the colon and rectum and meat consumption. As far as I know it is widely accepted that we have not yet had time to evolve the capacity to properly digest meat hich has been cooked. All carnivores and omnivores have evolved to digest meat that has it natural enzymes (primarily lipases for fat digestion and proteases for protein digestion) intact in the raw flesh. These are destroyed in the cooking process.

rubadub

ntlbell wrote: »

Just wondering if there is much evidence that vegan's and vege's are less prone to types of cancer?

Are there any studies saying they are more prone?
Have they ever done tests/studies on animals? I ask that since I would expect on average veggies & vegans would have a healthier lifestyle in general, so that would skew any humans studies. This is the case for loads of stats, they use the faulty logic that 1million meateaters and veggies are the exact same in every respect except for what they eat. If they care so much about what they eat they will also be less likely to smoke & drink and eat poor nutritional food, probably more likely to exercise too.

Macha

Ok well one study from ScienceDirect. Basically having a vegetarian diet can result in hormonal changes and if a person has a type of cancer that is influenced by hormones, the adoption of a vegetarian diet can have a positive impact:

"Abstract

This study reports the effect of a vegetarian diet and dexamethasone administration on the hormone status of healthy Caucasian men and premenopausal women. A lower nocturnal release of prolactin and testosterone occurred in men fed a vegetarian diet, while in women, dexamethasone administration decreased the nocturnal release of prolactin and caused a greater decrease of plasma dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). These results show that diet modification can induce hormonal changes. If similar changes occur in patients with breast and/or prostatic cancer, diet modification may be of benefit in these patients with tumors known to be hormonally dependent."

sweet-rasmus

that really interesting taconnol. thanks for the research

Sapsorrow

heterocyclic amines are carcinogenic chemicals produced from cooking muscle meat, 17 of which have been identified that may pose human cancer risk.
NCI's Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics found a link between individuals with stomach cancer and the consumption of cooked meat, and other studies for colorectal, pancreatic, and breast cancer is associated with high intakes of well-done, fried, or barbecued meats.
Other sources of protein (milk, eggs, tofu, and organ meats such as liver) have very little or no HCA content naturally or when cooked.

Sapsorrow

Sorry tried to put in some of my college notes there and it didn't work very well !

Tar.Aldarion

MAYO Clinic:

"Vegetarians have lower rates of some cancers, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure and non-insulin-dependent diabetes. A study of nearly 2,000 vegetarians and part-time vegetarians conducted by German cancer researchers found eating little or no meat cut death rates from heart and circulatory disease in half and deaths from cancer by 25 to 50 percent. Vegetarians are also less likely to have gallstones, kidney stones and constipation and they weigh less on average."

"Studies show that a well-planned vegetarian diet offers numerous health benefits, such as a lower risk for obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, and some cancers."

Are there any studies saying they are more prone?
Have they ever done tests/studies on animals? I ask that since I would expect on average veggies & vegans would have a healthier lifestyle in general, so that would skew any humans studies. This is the case for loads of stats, they use the faulty logic that 1million meateaters and veggies are the exact same in every respect except for what they eat. If they care so much about what they eat they will also be less likely to smoke & drink and eat poor nutritional food, probably more likely to exercise too.

In my experience vegetarians are not less likely to drink. Don't now how much they exercise or smoke. If it is a moral/religious decision it wouldn't make a difference and most poeple are vegetarian for these reasons.

rubadub

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Sorry tried to put in some of my college notes there and it didn't work very well !

If you right click on your desktop you can go to NEW and make a new text document. If you cut and paste into a *.txt file you can then recopy it and when it pastes again it should get rid of any font info. Also good if you are pasting into word from the internet, as no pictures or fonts etc will be carried into a basic txt file.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

In my experience vegetarians are not less likely to drink. Don't now how much they exercise or smoke..

Of the only 2 tee total people I (knowingly) ever met one was a vegan. And most veggies I meet seem far more aware of what they put in their bodies than others who have no clue about food at all.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

If it is a moral/religious decision it wouldn't make a difference and most poeple are vegetarian for these reasons.

Even then they will have learned how to read nutritional info and ingredients lists, I highly recommend all people learn how to read packets, most meateaters I know have no clue how to read a packet. I am always reading packets and get comments about it "do you know what all that stuff means??" as though it is rocket science.

And of course some veggies do eat solely for health reasons, I still think it is more likely that the average veggie would take better care of themselves. I know a few people who do not eat red meat (is there a name for them?) for health reasons, they drink, but nowhere near as much as others I know.

They say 1 glass of wine a day is good for you, then some study was saying women who drank on average 2 or more glasses per day were in worse health. This is faulty logic, presuming that the only difference between 2 groups of women is their drinking. I expect non-drinkers or "low volume drinkers" are also less likely to smoke and more likely to exercise etc.

However reading all the reports I would think, all else being the same, the veggie would be in better health than his twin brother meateater. Just wondering if any study had said the opposite.

I expect moral & religious people are inherently less likely to break laws, and hence less likely to take illegal recreational drugs or generally lead a hedonistic lifesytle.

enda1

Assuming its true that people who eat meat are more prone to cancer than those who don't is not in any way proof that we are not designed to eat meat.

People are living for longer now than they ever have. We are kicking the asses of diseases left right and centre. So of course the rates of cancer are rising - you have to die somehow!

Its in natures and the biological ecosystem that we die and nature has programmed lots of traps for us. In animal terms, its unhealthy for a pack to have old members - they don't contribute and are more a burden than help so its in the packs interest for their members to die before becoming a burden.

The natural processes behind aging are the same which can lead to cancerous cells.

Here's a guess - a successful hunter eats a lot of meat and therefore is damaging disproportionatly the stock of meat for everyone else and for the animal he's hunting - so maybe its a sort of species defence mechanism that this hunter gets cancer from the over indulgence in his kills. Who knows but nothing is black and white!

(I swear my post made a lot more sense in my head than it does here...)

Sam Kade

All the studies seem to be done in America and Canada where they still use growth promoters and drugs in cattle that have been banned in Europe over 25 years ago. Theres a big difference between grass based Irish beef and American and Canadian beef.

Macha

Sam Kade wrote: »

All the studies seem to be done in America and Canada where they still use growth promoters and drugs in cattle that have been banned in Europe over 25 years ago. Theres a big difference between grass based Irish beef and American and Canadian beef.

Doh, I was actually just about to say that. It isn't just a question of quantity but also quality. Basically people eat too much crappy meat. Instead, they should be eating far smaller quantities of high quality, high welfare meat.

Tar.Aldarion

rubadub wrote: »

Of the only 2 tee total people I (knowingly) ever met one was a vegan. And most veggies I meet seem far more aware of what they put in their bodies than others who have no clue about food at all.

Of the 8 I know one is vegetarian, Althought that might still be a higher percentage vegetarian ones!

I'd mostly agree with the rest of your post, when you read packets youstop buying as much crap, and I don't drink as much because you come around to wanting to be healthy when you think about diet a lot.

Mentalmiss

ntlbell wrote: »

Just wondering if there is much evidence that vegan's and vege's are less prone to types of cancer?

Have you read "The China Study" by T Colin Campbell. It is a great book. In it, his research (and he was a dairyman) proved that you can not develop a tumour if you keep your animal protein intake to below 5% of your calories.
His tests were primarily done comparing milk protein and veg protein. Milk feeds tumours veg does not. He and his family are now all vegans.

Sapsorrow

lol funny i just finished reading that book a week ago, my food toxicology lecturer lent me it, he worked with colin T. Campell in the states when they did the experiements with aflatoxins and rats on low protein diets, he's mentioned in the book too!

Mentalmiss

khrystyna100 wrote: »

lol funny i just finished reading that book a week ago, my food toxicology lecturer lent me it, he worked with colin T. Campell in the states when they did the experiements with aflatoxins and rats on low protein diets, he's mentioned in the book too!

What are you studying and where. Sounds like you are lucky with your lecturer.

Sapsorrow

Ya he's the best alright, had him for two years now last year for food chemistry and for food toxicology this year but only really became friends with him this year. I'm in third year nutritional science in UCC.

I-like-eggs,mmm

Definitely a lower rate of cancer in vegetarians and vegans.
I did my thesis on the primary prevention of colorectal cancer by diet....

While I wasn't focusing on vegetarian diets, they were the most prevalent in the prevention of cancer. In particular low fat vegan diets. This may be because of the fact that being overweight, consuming too many animal fats and too little vegetables increases the risk of cancers. By following a low fat vegan diet, you're more likely to have a healthy weight and body fat index... Other diets that came up were Japanese diets and Mediterranean diets. Was very interesting! Well to me it was...:)

On the red meat argument... while there is a risk associated with colorectal cancer..it's moreso processed meat that increases risk as it's it's higher in salt and saturated fats.

Oh and the WCRF report is a brilliant piece of evidence!!! I don't know if you got the link sorted for it... but here's a quick link for a summary of their recommendations: http://www.wcrf-uk.org/research_science/recommendations.lasso

There's also a reading supplement on the WCRF website called "Informed" which is also a good read.

Anyway.... eating meat is pure plain freaky don't you think? Not knowing what exactly is in the meat and what type of food it was fed...hmm. Anyone ever read the book "Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser"...?