I’ll put it this way.
Fuck studies.
[quote]King Bling wrote:
winkel wrote:
A buddy of mine having seen my heavy red meat intake sent me below links to a comprehensive report released last year by the World Cancer Research Fund stating that eating over 500 grams (appx 18 oz) of red meat a week raises the risk of bowel cancer. Personally I eat more than that in a day.
The World Cancer Research Fund does not seem to be the type of organisation that would create sensational headlines just to get attention but this research really surprise me.
Comments anybody?
But why risk getting cancer by eating red meat when you can eat poultry which is relatively safer and healtier??
chicken, turkey and esp. ostrich meat which is officially a red meat but has the characterisitcs of poultry.[/quote]
because
-
doctors, nutritionists, dieticians, medical experts are idiots
-
chicken doesn’t have the nice mix of saturated fat + cholesterol + protein i need
[quote]cyph31 wrote:
King Bling wrote:
winkel wrote:
A buddy of mine having seen my heavy red meat intake sent me below links to a comprehensive report released last year by the World Cancer Research Fund stating that eating over 500 grams (appx 18 oz) of red meat a week raises the risk of bowel cancer. Personally I eat more than that in a day.
The World Cancer Research Fund does not seem to be the type of organisation that would create sensational headlines just to get attention but this research really surprise me.
Comments anybody?
But why risk getting cancer by eating red meat when you can eat poultry which is relatively safer and healtier??
chicken, turkey and esp. ostrich meat which is officially a red meat but has the characterisitcs of poultry.
because
-
doctors, nutritionists, dieticians, medical experts are idiots
-
chicken doesn’t have the nice mix of saturated fat + cholesterol + protein i need[/quote]
ahaha those degrees from harvard or cambridge medical school are really that useless are they?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
winkel wrote:
A buddy of mine having seen my heavy red meat intake sent me below links to a comprehensive report released last year by the World Cancer Research Fund stating that eating over 500 grams (appx 18 oz) of red meat a week raises the risk of bowel cancer. Personally I eat more than that in a day.
The World Cancer Research Fund does not seem to be the type of organisation that would create sensational headlines just to get attention but this research really surprise me.
Comments anybody?
One (and only one) reason that Japan and many other countries have a lower incidence of certain cancers is because of our great amount of red meat consumption. It matters not if it’s grass fed.
We want to eat grass fed Beef because it is lower in fat, which might be better. However, that has nothing to do statistically with an over consumption of red meat causing cancer. But I think it’s more than just read meat consumption. America is the land of over eating and that is dangerous for many reasons.
I always cringe when I read about huge football players, bodybuilders, powerlifters etc. talking about their diets and the great amount of calories swallowed each day. There is very good evidence that this sort of diet will unquestionably cut your lifespan short.
How many have read about caloric restriction and longevity? It’s now a fact that the less calories that you eat the healthier you are and the longer you will probably live.
If of course those calories are filled with quality nutrients etc. Then again who wants to look like a pencil neck geek in order to reach 90 or 100?
Okay, sorry for the digression.
The question:
Can red meat give you cancer? The short answer is…that depends.
If you eat it less than three times per week, and never barbecue probably not.
Correlation is not causation.
Can’t have causation without correlation.
[/quote]
Try harder than that. Show me causation, and you win. Short of that, you are no better than the PETA fucks spouting junk science bullshit that is nothing but correlation.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You know Jsbrook I agree with you. And I’m not so sure we can’t have it both ways. There is some talk that the burning of calories via a good workout may very well have a similar effect on the body as not consuming said calories. However, I don’t think that they are referring to those who eat mega calories as in 5,000+ calories per day.
The caloric restriction group state that one must keep their calories to around 1,500 per day, (really that’s no fun at all…none) but with very high nutrition. If one eats 3,000 calories per day and burns 1,500 per day training the end result might just be the same thing as caloric restriction…the jury is still out however.
The larger question, if the above is true is that in order to burn 1,500 calories per day one needs a herculean effort. For example, if a 200 pound man were to lift weights vigorously for one full hour he would only burn about 300 calories. Even if that same man biked vigorously for one hour he would still only burn about 1000 calories. So you can see the inherent dilemma for those who consume large amounts of calories but still want to attempt to extend their life (if in fact burning calories as opposed to not consuming them, can extend life).
Anyway…I’ve also read some interesting studies which have demonstrated on mice at least…that a certain product sold right here at T-Nation can also extend life and keep disease to a minimum as well. That product is Resveratrol.
Okay we’re off topic but I think it was in a positive direction given the subject matter.[/quote]
Yeah. I had also remembered seeing studies in the past that rats who were tremendously active and maintained similar levels of body fat as the calorically-deprived rats had similar increases in longevity. But when I tried to find it this time, albeit briefly, I couldn’t. The research I saw instead, suggested the opposite. That calorically-deprived rats still lived much longer than rats who ate more and were much more active with similar levels of bodyfat. So, there’s a lot left for us to learn.
[quote]King Bling wrote:
winkel wrote:
A buddy of mine having seen my heavy red meat intake sent me below links to a comprehensive report released last year by the World Cancer Research Fund stating that eating over 500 grams (appx 18 oz) of red meat a week raises the risk of bowel cancer. Personally I eat more than that in a day.
The World Cancer Research Fund does not seem to be the type of organisation that would create sensational headlines just to get attention but this research really surprise me.
Comments anybody?
But why risk getting cancer by eating red meat when you can eat poultry which is relatively safer and healtier??
chicken, turkey and esp. ostrich meat which is officially a red meat but has the characterisitcs of poultry.[/quote]
Because red meat tastes good. Has a great amino acid profile and benefits that poultry doesn’t have (both should be eaten). And a lot of hard-training athletes who avoid processed food could probably benefit from MORE saturated fat in their diet. Too much is bad from everything I have read, whatever the pro-cholesterol people say, but you need a certain amount for optimal hormone functioning. And the studies haven’t been able to explain why or any mechanism by which red meat would increase cancer risks. (They have established a more conclusive causal connection with burned foods. Best to avoid chargrilled foods too often). Nor have the studies properly eliminated confounds and poor dietary practice (and lack of exercise) that the majority of red meat eaters have but that most of those on T-Nation who eat red meat probably don’t. For a long time, they said eggs were an evil food because they have a lot of dietary cholesterol. Now, even mainstream nutrition is adopting the position that dietary cholesterol does not even increase cholesterol in the body. Too much saturated fat does. I take it ALL with a grain of salt. Stay lean, lift hard, eat mostly clean natural foods, get enough unsaturated fat, eat enough protein, plenty of veggies, get some but not excessive amounts of saturated fat. That’s really all you can do. You’ll drive yourself crazy paying too much attention to every study that posits something without explaining why and will be proven wrong in 20 years.
[quote]King Bling wrote:
cyph31 wrote:
King Bling wrote:
winkel wrote:
A buddy of mine having seen my heavy red meat intake sent me below links to a comprehensive report released last year by the World Cancer Research Fund stating that eating over 500 grams (appx 18 oz) of red meat a week raises the risk of bowel cancer. Personally I eat more than that in a day.
The World Cancer Research Fund does not seem to be the type of organisation that would create sensational headlines just to get attention but this research really surprise me.
Comments anybody?
But why risk getting cancer by eating red meat when you can eat poultry which is relatively safer and healtier??
chicken, turkey and esp. ostrich meat which is officially a red meat but has the characterisitcs of poultry.
because
-
doctors, nutritionists, dieticians, medical experts are idiots
-
chicken doesn’t have the nice mix of saturated fat + cholesterol + protein i need
ahaha those degrees from harvard or cambridge medical school are really that useless are they?[/quote]
when it comes to nutrition yes those degrees are definitely useless and antiquated
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
However, I don’t think that they are referring to those who eat mega calories as in 5,000+ calories per day. [/quote]
You mean to tell us that you don’t?
Turn in your T-card at the door.
[quote]whereami wrote:
At this point I guess pretty much everything causes cancer - microwaves, plastic, pollution, red meat, artificial sweeteners, etc.
Like others have written, up your veggies, use Superfood, and take some supplemental antioxidants.[/quote]
Apparently veggies cause cancer too : s
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1824156.stm
If you eat healthy you get cancer. If you eat ‘unhealthy’ you get cancer! you just can’t win these guys.
Also these so called experts won’t be able to explain why my grandad (just an e.g.) who eats crap all day (eats mostly white bread and lentils everyday) is in good health and about to celebrate his 100th birthday in a month.
Obviously there is more too it than just diet alone. Genetics predispositions clearly play one of the biggest roles.
“The women reported their own food habits to the researchers in 1991, 1993, and 1995. Their health was evaluated from 1991 through 2003.”
OH COME ON !
not this bullshit again
why didn’t the study mention what the rest of their diet consisted of ? did the ones eating 11 servings of red meat a week eat garbage the rest of the time ? it’s this damn cherry-picking of facts and trusting the patient to honestly report their food habits that makes all food studies questionable
"The new study, led by American Cancer Society researchers and involving 148,610 men and women aged 63 on average, is among the biggest. Participants recorded their meat intake in 1982 and again in 1992-93. Those with a high meat intake were about 30 to 40 percent more likely to develop lower colon or rectal cancer than those with a low intake.
High meat intake for men was at least 3 ounces daily �?? about the size of a large fast-food hamburger �?? and 2 ounces daily for women. Low intake was about 2 ounces or less of red meat no more than twice weekly for men and less than an ounce that often for women."
oh hey look there it is again
what else did the men with high meat intake eat ? i love how they mention fast food hamburgers in terms of portion size yet ignore the possibility that these high meat intake people were eating fast food, because we all know fast food has no effect on cancer
that site posted previously where the author was stating “news stories start from the most eye-catching info first and work down from there, and then cut out what they believe isn’t necessary starting from the bottom” was absolutely right
i want to these studies documenting lifetime consumption of grains and no i don’t mean refined grains, i mean high consumption of whole grains (let’s say 1000+ calories of them a day) because they will still screw up your insulin sensitivity in the end
and here comes more antiquated medical dogma from the 1970’s
"A spokesman for the British Dietetic Association told BBC News Online: “We would encourage people to eat a balanced diet based mainly on starchy carbohydrates, fruit and vegetables with small amounts of protein from a variety of sources, including dairy, vegetables, meat, fish and poultry.”
of course because excess starchy carbohydrates are magically removed from the body instead of being turned into FAT TISSUE
do you have a sedentary job for 8-10 hours a day ? in other words do you live in a modern urban society ? then you don’t deserve those starchy carbs you are eating right now, eat your damn protein and fat instead
[quote]cyph31 wrote:
Give it a few years and i’m sure there will be a multi-billion dollar study with the conclusion “breathing may be detrimental to long term health”[/quote]
Every death has been by somebody who, at one point or another, breathed. That’s 100% correlation.
In fact, over 95% of juvenile delinquents have eaten tomatoes. Maybe we should ban tomatoes too.
you’re right we should ban tomatoes, they have too many carbs
string beans are ok though
While this ‘may’ have some substance (but then again may not), you have to think that most people in the world do not even know that sugar/refined cards/excess carbs cause high cholesterol! The media has told them that saturated fat is the cholesterol baddie.
…AND GRAINS CURE EVERYTHING, and salt is bad for you (even though ‘they’ clearly think that salt = refined, chemical crap when it does not!).
These authorities are the same ones who warn you that eating more than 2 fish oil caps per day is risky!
i take 18-30 fish oil caps a day
so by the wisdom of cardiologists i should be dead
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Correlation is not causation.
Can’t have causation without correlation.
Try harder than that. Show me causation, and you win. Short of that, you are no better than the PETA fucks spouting junk science bullshit that is nothing but correlation.
[/quote]
Some of my clients are Department’s of Transportation and Public Safety. I deal with ‘crash statistics’ on a regular basis, as road safety scores are factors in what roads get funded, etc etc.
Here’s an interesting statistic:
100% of all crashes involving beer trucks are alcohol related (ie alchohol was involved).
Was alcohol responsible for all these crashes?