Red Meat Promotes Cancer?

Nutrition
62

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
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.

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.

I think there is much compelling evidence which demonstrates that eating red meat (at least in high quantities) is unhealthy. Below are just a sampling of the very strong evidence against a diet high in red meat.

[b]New findings provide evidence that people who eat a lot of red and processed meats have greater risk of developing bowel and lung cancer than people who eat small quantities.

The research by Amanda Cross and colleagues at the US National Cancer Institute is published in the latest issue of PLoS Medicine.[/b]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/90952.php

[b]Of the 1021 women who developed breast cancer while participating in the study, women with a certain type of common breast cancer (estrogen and progesterone receptor positive) were more likely to have eaten, on average, at least 11 servings of red meat every week.

In contrast, the study showed that women who ate 5 servings or fewer of red meat every week were only about half as likely to develop breast cancer.[/b]

http://www.center4research.org/wmnshlth/2006/meat-cancer.html

b Two studies shed new light on the link between diet and cancer, bolstering evidence that red meat may raise colorectal cancer risks but casting doubt on whether fruits and vegetables can help prevent breast cancer.[/b]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/11/health/main666228.shtml

[b]Eating red meat introduces a potentially dangerous molecule into the body tissues, according to researchers.
Scientists from the University of California in San Diego believe it could cause heart disease and cancer by triggering a harmful immune response.

Humans cannot produce the molecule - a type of sugar - but it occurs at high levels in lamb, pork and beef.

The research is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences[/b]

How many studies are there that Broccoli causes cancer?

Uh huh…

Okay tough guy your turn.[/quote]

Strictly correlation. How many of these women were on birth control?

What was the physical condition of the men?

Please.

The study also includes processed meats.

Please again.

You’re not even worth a reply.

But great job on the google. I only wish you knew what the fuck you were talking about.

63

Wow. Now I have seen everything.

Now apparently one of the very foods we have evolved into being supposed to thrive on (i.e, BIG FUCKING JUICY ANIMALS), are gonna kill us?

All I can say is, I hope they have steak in heaven.

64

Beware the Fluff Words-- they cost taxpayers LOTS of money (and dope the ignorant):

may, might, could, possibly, likely, potentially

These words don’t PROVE anything.

Whoa! Gotta run, I HATE when my steak is overdone…

65

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
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.

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.

I think there is much compelling evidence which demonstrates that eating red meat (at least in high quantities) is unhealthy. Below are just a sampling of the very strong evidence against a diet high in red meat.

[b]New findings provide evidence that people who eat a lot of red and processed meats have greater risk of developing bowel and lung cancer than people who eat small quantities.

The research by Amanda Cross and colleagues at the US National Cancer Institute is published in the latest issue of PLoS Medicine.[/b]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/90952.php

[b]Of the 1021 women who developed breast cancer while participating in the study, women with a certain type of common breast cancer (estrogen and progesterone receptor positive) were more likely to have eaten, on average, at least 11 servings of red meat every week.

In contrast, the study showed that women who ate 5 servings or fewer of red meat every week were only about half as likely to develop breast cancer.[/b]

http://www.center4research.org/wmnshlth/2006/meat-cancer.html

b Two studies shed new light on the link between diet and cancer, bolstering evidence that red meat may raise colorectal cancer risks but casting doubt on whether fruits and vegetables can help prevent breast cancer.[/b]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/11/health/main666228.shtml

[b]Eating red meat introduces a potentially dangerous molecule into the body tissues, according to researchers.
Scientists from the University of California in San Diego believe it could cause heart disease and cancer by triggering a harmful immune response.

Humans cannot produce the molecule - a type of sugar - but it occurs at high levels in lamb, pork and beef.

The research is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences[/b]

How many studies are there that Broccoli causes cancer?

Uh huh…

Okay tough guy your turn.

Strictly correlation. How many of these women were on birth control?

What was the physical condition of the men?

Please.

The study also includes processed meats.

Please again.

You’re not even worth a reply.

But great job on the google. I only wish you knew what the fuck you were talking about.
[/quote]

Yes. Studies that don’t eliminate the significant confounds don’t prove much. The existing studies haven’t eliminated ANY of the significant confounds much less most of them.

Anyone whose ever taken a rudimentary Research and Methods class or who just stops to think about it for a second realizes this.

What needs to happen to prove anything at all is a longitudinal study with a group that eats decent amounts of red meat and a group that doesn’t where nutritional, exercise, and other habits are otherwise controlled and are roughly the same.

66

Sucking dick promotes gum cancer.

Swallowing the love mayo decreases risk of breast cancer.

This cancer obsession is getting a little out of hand. Just stay healthy.

67

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Beware the Fluff Words-- they cost taxpayers LOTS of money (and dope the ignorant):

may, might, could, possibly, likely, potentially

These words don’t PROVE anything.

Whoa! Gotta run, I HATE when my steak is overdone…[/quote]

these words are used all the time in advertising regardless of the product or service

because it’s difficult to sue against “may improve” “likely to improve” “has potential benefits”

68

[quote]King Bling wrote:
ahaha those degrees from harvard or cambridge medical school are really that useless are they?[/quote]

Yes. Remember - Marijuana will kill you and so will AAS.

69

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Trenchant wrote:

Know what? I’d rather die young wihile being active rather than live to 90 worry about my red meat consumption

Spoken like a true 20 something…no offense intended my friend. But, life is funny…as you get older you begin to appreciate the idea of living longer.

Anyway, if you are active you should be able to make it to 90 with a good diet of course.[/quote]

I dunno, I just turned 42. Yea, that’s me in my avatar. Is there anyone here that doubts that I’m gonna make it to 90, red meat regardless? There is a right way to doing this. My suggestion - pick up a book written by Jack LaLane. Read it from a man who’s been walking the walk for almost 100 years.

DJ

70

Or you could try and live like tomoji tanabe (worlds oldest man) and a considerable number of other japanese or crete centenarians. Most of these people have probably eaten steak…maybe twice in their entire lives.

This could be coincidence, i don’t know, but until their traditional cuisines were influenced by the western diet, both of these cultures, on average had the longest lifespans.

What i find most interesting is that the nutritional profile of each cuisine is significantly different:

The crete staple diet consists of wholegrains, fruit and veg, and olive oil (upto 40%), with moderate weekly intakes of fish/seafood and dairy (yogurt,cheeses).

On the other hand the japanese practically live off of Fish, fruit and veg, and (white!) rice.

It seems the only things that both these cuisines lack are the large amounts of red meat/ poultry/ saturated fats which are frequently consumed by many westerners.

I guess it’s down to the individual though. If your muscles are more important to you than overall health, you can consume vast quantities of Red meat and risk getting cancer amongst many other life-threatening illnesses.

Or alternatively you can adopt a more heart helthy diet like the ones above, which may help you enjoy good health and longevity.

The choice is yours i guess.

73

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
A bunch of crap that tries to excuse the absence of causation.

[/quote]

You blather on for 10 paragraphs, say nothing of substance in an attempt to make yourself sound right, and you have the time to be concerned about my shortcomings?

That was fucking hilarious.

I’m not the one clinging to bullshit in fear of being wrong. That would be you.

You can’t prove the one thing that was asked of you. Why can’t you just admit it, and move on?

You are bordering on pathetic.

74

eat lots of meat (with veggies), get bigger muscles and feel way better for 40-50 years

or eat lots of grains, veggies and fruit, feel weaker but live longer

i’ll pick choice #1

every time i hear “we have increased the average lifespan in north america” i laugh as if its something to be proud about being weak, crippled and dependent on medications

76

[quote]cyph31 wrote:
eat lots of meat (with veggies), get bigger muscles and feel way better for 40-50 years

[/quote]

40-50 years hmmm, I think that’s pushing it abit

Mike Mahler isn’t weak

That’s because they eat crap all day long: processed meats, chips, refined sugars, trans fats etc. They barely eat any fresh fruit/veg or wholegrains and their omega-3 EFA intake is virtually nil. So they’re obviously going to suffer from many nutritional deficiencies.
Combine that with the fact that many lead ridiculously sedentary lifetstyles and you have your real answer as to why they’re in such terrible condition.

77

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

I never said that there was proof that over indulging in read meat caused cancer. If you had actually read my posts you would have realized this. I clearly state it a number of times. Everyone else understands this…
[/quote]

Oh - I read your post, which led me to post this:

Correlation is not causation.

To which you replied:

Can’t have causation without correlation.

Then I said:

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.

The rest of your blather after that point is an attempt at back peddling and deflection.

Everyone else understands this…but you.

It’s okay, though - you have a long and distinguished track record of not possessing the wattage to get your light bulb very fucking bright.

78

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Mick28 wrote:

I never said that there was proof that over indulging in read meat caused cancer. If you had actually read my posts you would have realized this. I clearly state it a number of times. Everyone else understands this…

Oh - I read your post, which led me to post this:

Correlation is not causation.

To which you replied:

Can’t have causation without correlation.

Then I said:

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.

The rest of your blather after that point is an attempt at back peddling and deflection.

Everyone else understands this…but you.

It’s okay, though - you have a long and distinguished track record of not possessing the wattage to get your light bulb very fucking bright.
[/quote]

It is impossible to prove causation.

That is part of Humes induction problem.

Since we are nitpicking, you are asking for the impossible and if you live up to your own standards you cannot believe or know anything.

Yippee.

79

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Mick28 wrote:

I never said that there was proof that over indulging in read meat caused cancer. If you had actually read my posts you would have realized this. I clearly state it a number of times. Everyone else understands this…

Oh - I read your post, which led me to post this:

Correlation is not causation.

To which you replied:

Can’t have causation without correlation.

Then I said:

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.

The rest of your blather after that point is an attempt at back peddling and deflection.

Everyone else understands this…but you.

It’s okay, though - you have a long and distinguished track record of not possessing the wattage to get your light bulb very fucking bright.

It is impossible to prove causation.

That is part of Humes induction problem.

Since we are nitpicking, you are asking for the impossible and if you live up to your own standards you cannot believe or know anything.

Yippee.

[/quote]

But that didn’t stop him from saying he could.

Chew on that.

yippee.