Red meat blamed for increased cancer risk

cozmik

The article says

"The bottom line is we found an association between red meat and processed meat and an increased risk of mortality," said Rashmi Sinha of the National Cancer Institute, who led the study published yesterday in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

In contrast, routine consumption of fish, chicken, turkey and other poultry decreased the risk of death by a small amount.

"The take-home message is pretty clear," said Walter Willett, a nutrition expert at the Harvard School of Public Health. "It would be better to shift from red meat to white meat such as chicken and fish, which if anything is associated with lower mortality."

Experts stressed that the findings do not mean that people need to eliminate red meat from their diet, but instead should avoid eating it every day.

"You can be very healthy being a vegetarian, but you can be very healthy being a non-vegetarian if you keep your red-meat intake low," Willett said. "If you are eating meat twice a day and can cut back to once a day there's a big benefit. If you cut back to two or three times a week there's even more benefit. If you eliminate it entirely, there's a little more benefit, but the big benefit is getting away from everyday red-meat consumption."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301626.html?hpid=topnews

SO -- what will you have for lunch or dinner today? VEGETABLES, FISH, FRUIT, right?

seamus

Cancer is very, very simple. It occurs because of a genetic mutation when a cell divides (as they do) which causes it to continue to divide uncontrollably. Cells mutate a lot when they divide, but the vast majority of the time this occurs it creates a non-functioning cell which dies quickly and is recycled by the body.
It takes a very specific set of circumstances for a cell to become cancerous - the odds of a cell mutating when it divides are low and the odds of that mutation being cancer are ridiculously low - you've a far better chance of winning the lotto.

However the problem is that over your lifetime, your cells will divide a lot. This increases the chances of developing cancer in your lifetime significantly to the usual 1 in 4 that we hear. It's like managing to do the lotto a few millions times over the course of your life will vastly improve your chances of winning at some point.

Some activities contribute to your possibility of developing cancer. When cells are damaged unnecessarily, the body creates new cells to replace them, which wouldn't otherwise need to have been created. Each one of these new cells has that additional chance of being cancerous. So activities which damage cells consistently, thus requiring your body to constantly up its production of new cells, contribute to your likelihood of developing cancer.
This is why smoking increases the odds of lung and throat cancer. Why sunbathing increases your risk of skin cancer, and why even drinking hot tea increases your chances of getting throat cancer. Most of the activities which we take part in, in our daily lives (and have done since the dawn of time), naturally cause cell damage and increase your risk of developing cancer. Even the simple task of digestion causes cell damage. Which is where I'm leading onto. Foods which are harder to digest, such as red meats, uncooked vegetables and so forth, will increase your risk of getting cancer. Foods which create toxins and acids (which red meat does afaik) also contribute to getting cancer.

In addition, as you get older, your body just isn't as good at replicating any more and the rate of cell mutation increases. This is why older people are far more likely to develop cancer and why cancer rates have been increasing steadily for the past 50 years - because we're living longer.

In fact, if you spent your time worrying about what does and doesn't cause cancer, you'd sit in your house, blinds drawn, not moving, and die of dehydration in about 2 days. Moderation is the key. Eating red meat occassionally will not significantly increase your risk of developing cancer. Eating it all the time, will.

rubadub

^^^Great post, never heard or thought of it like that before. I have said before if you did not eat any of the foods rumoured to give you cancer you would probably die of starvation

seamus

It's worth noting also that our fitness-crazy and weight-lifting enthusiasts are at an increased risk of developing muscular cancers due to the continual damage and development of their muscular frames.

So you live a longer, healthier life only to be rewarded with sickness

billyhead

Dont believe what you read.If we all went this way we would end up eating rabbit food. Now wheres that 10 OZ steak I was meaning to stick on the George Forman:pac::pac:

techdiver

Next week there will be another story saying Red Meat decreases the chances of cancer.

cozmik

techdiver wrote: »

Next week there will be another story saying Red Meat decreases the chances of cancer.

I doubt it.

Sapsorrow

techdiver wrote: »

Next week there will be another story saying Red Meat decreases the chances of cancer.

Good science is never that fikle these days, it's just prone to mis-interpreatation especially by people with biased motivations.

Sapsorrow

techdiver wrote: »

Next week there will be another story saying Red Meat decreases the chances of cancer.

That depends on who you ask! good unbiased science is never that fickle nowadays, you just have to question the motivations of those who interpret the results for the rest of us!

Apip99

Check out the book or DVD, 'Rave Diet'. I watched it over the weekend, and it brought up some very intresting facts. I would say a must watch for anyone wondering about the effects of red Meat.

El_Dangeroso

cozmik wrote: »

I doubt it.

Really? Because after a quick search I found two studies that came out the same week that say the opposite and of course got zero press coverage due to the massive media bias against red meat:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2008.26838v1

and

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2008.26838v1

Also, the study you quote (well actually you quote an article, not a study) is an observational study. The only good scientific use for an observational study is to generate hypotheses. They cannot prove anything, just offer suggestions for avenues in research.

This explains how scientific studies are handled in the media:


It's always best to take studies reported in the media with a sizeable grain of salt:

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/05/04/academic-medical-centers-often-guilty-of-research-hype/

cozmik

neddas wrote: »

I found two studies
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2008.26838v1

and

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2008.26838v1

Well actually you linked the same study twice! and it doesn't say anything about red meat decreasing the chances of cancer.

El_Dangeroso

cozmik wrote: »

Well actually you linked the same study twice! and it doesn't say anything about red meat decreasing the chances of cancer.

Oops, here is the other study:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.26736Lv1

Your study showed an association between red meat and mortality. Both of those studies showed no association, the exact opposite.

cozmik

neddas wrote: »

Oops, here is the other study:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.26736Lv1

Your study showed an association between red meat and mortality. Both of those studies showed no association, the exact opposite.

Would you please take a look again at the quote I was doubting.

Next week there will be another story saying Red Meat decreases the chances of cancer.

Neither of the studies you linked say red meat decreases the chances of cancer.

If you're going to argue a point, at least sit down and read what was said.

Black Swan

Read a book once by Henry G. Bieler Food is your best medicine, wherein he claimed that based upon the evolution of our teeth, that roughly 10 percent were for meat eating and 90 percent for grinding fruits, veggies, and grains. Given this, a balanced diet would only allow for 10 percent meat, be it red, white or fish. If this argument has merit, I wonder if such a diet would eliminate the concern with eating too much red meat?

El_Dangeroso

cozmik wrote: »

Would you please take a look again at the quote I was doubting.



Neither of the studies you linked say red meat decreases the chances of cancer.

If you're going to argue a point, at least sit down and read what was said.

Ok... pedantry aside..

My whole point is that epidemiological studies don't mean anything, prove anything and are generally scientifically useless for doing anything except generating hypotheses.

The reason that there are no studies showing it decreases cancer is that no study has tried to.. you can bend an epidemiological study to say whatever you want if you get clever enough with statistics.

There are numerous traditional populations that eat lots of red meat and yet no incidence of cancer whatsoever.

You really need to critically analyse a study to see what it really shows. If you read that study you'd see what a big pile of bs science that it really is. Reading an news article based on a press release based on a study isn't going to show you that.