Red meat and cancer...

Forums › Health and fitness › Red meat and cancer...

1 | 2 | 3

88 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 25

#2220925 19-Apr-2019 08:42

MileHighKiwi: I think it's important to watch what you eat, everything in moderation etc....

But there's a degree of randomness that can't be controlled. What I mean is we all know perfectly healthy people that die early and we know unhealthy people that live much longer. I have an uncle who has probably never seen a vegetable in his life, he really doesnt take good care of himself yet he's 80 and and still going strong. He doesnt drink though.

My grandma died from lung cancer at 65 and my grandad died at 92 still smoking and drinking and eating red meat till his last days.

Be responsible but enjoy life, you never know when it will end. Time for some bacon and eggs :)

Yeah indeed, uncertainty in matters of life and death is guaranteed. Plus "Good Health" seems to be a complex subject based upon environmental influences,human genetic influences,lifestyle, and now depending on who you read and believe - psychology / mental health. Stress contributes enormously to many health conditions, and this is regarded proven by most Biologists and Cancer researchers if I am not mistaken.... "Hardening up" no longer counts for Kiwis anymore, unless you are thinking of arteries. In saying this Resilience goes a long way towards our healthy state of mind, and part of that process is about having peer support and not feeling lonely. Thankfully we have forums of like mind to enjoy.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#2220951 19-Apr-2019 09:20

Compared with those in the lowest category, participants in the highest category of reported total red-meat intake were slightly older, more likely to be smokers, had a higher BMI and body-fat percentage, had a higher alcohol intake and had lower intakes of fruit, vegetables and fibre. The same was true for processed-meat intake, with the exception of age, which was similar between the two categories.

So the conclusion is actually: People who smoke are more likely to get cancer.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41053

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2220956 19-Apr-2019 09:37

Dratsab:

Living is bad for your health. Enjoy yourself or don't. I've been brought up on a diet which includes a reasonable (certainly not excessive) amount of red meat. I enjoy things the way they are. If I changed, I probably wouldn't enjoy things so much so I'll stick with what I like and take my chances. Got to say, I'm really looking forward to a night out at Gauchos with a few others from here in a couple of weeks time :-)

You start dying when you are conceived. Sure you might want to do everything in your power to live longer. But despite your efforts, the drunk driver had different plans. Or natural disasters happen.

I will keep with my high red meat and carbs diet. And coffee. With moderate red wine and single malt scotch whisky.

So be it.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#2220993 19-Apr-2019 10:18

darylblake:

I have cut my beer intake in the last couple of years significantly and as a result, along with fasting and a ketogenic diet I have lost lots of weight, feel a tonne better.

I have increasingly been interested in the benefits of fasting over recent months. We spend so much time eating, we don't give our bodies and digestive organs much opportunity to rest and recover, they are pretty much processing food for the majority of a 24-hour day.

I've been on a time restricted eating diet for the last 7 months where I only eat in a 8-hour window each day (12pm to 8pm), and fast for the other 16 hours (black coffee and water only). I am also considering a 3-day fast, probably only one a year. Some of the benefits for me from time restricted eating:

- improved BMI

- more time in the mornings

- I enjoy food more.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41053

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2221220 19-Apr-2019 17:52

So, as suspected, the OP doesn't need to stop eating red meat. From this evaluation of the study:

“Moderate evidence reports inconsistent positive associations between colorectal cancer and the intake of certain animal protein products, mainly red and processed meat.” (My emphasis) (P105 Ref 8).

Evidence: The totality of the evidence for colorectal cancer comprised 13 studies (which represented prospective cohorts from the US, Europe, Australia, Finland, Japan, China and Sweden published since 2000).

The following are direct quotations from the evidence library: “In studies examining total meat intake, none reported a relationship with overall colorectal cancer risk (Flood, 2003; Jarvinen, 2001; Lee, 2009b; Oba, 2006; Sato, 2006) or risk associated with specific subsites (Lee, 2009b; Sato, 2006; Wu, 2006)… The EPIC study observed no association between red meat and colorectal cancer, but did observe a positive association for processed meat… Some studies found a relationship with rectal cancer and red meat intake [ZH – note – this was never actually red meat] (Chao, 2005; English, 2004), while others found no association (Kojima, 2004; Larsson, 2005; Lee, 2009b; Wei, 2004; Wu, 2006).”

“In general, the studies showed no consistent findings on type of meat or meat product and colorectal cancer” (P105 Ref 8).

BOTTOM LINE: There were no findings against red meat. I found the same when I examined this in April 2018 (Ref 10).

Also, looking at this table from the studies listed as evidence:

@dratsab, I think we have the green light for the churrasco.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41053

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2221232 19-Apr-2019 17:53

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2221275 19-Apr-2019 19:46

A tech internet forum for health advice, yeah that will work.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2221311 19-Apr-2019 22:58

freitasm:

So, as suspected, the OP doesn't need to stop eating red meat. From this evaluation of the study:

From a seller of fad diet books, probably most widely published (apart from self-published) in the Daily M Fail ?

Oh please give me a break!

I did mention that I'm also skeptical of the study, but I'm highly confident that she's a nutcase on a mission, mainly to make money by stirring controversy to sell books to the gullible.

That's despite my gut feeling that she's probably (but only partly) correct on some things she's on a mission about, cholesterol/statins, that 5+ a day is a marketing statement not science based.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2221331 19-Apr-2019 23:13

freitasm

(tweet from fad-diet book writer)

OK - I'll wave figure 1, below.

She suggests on twitter that waving this data from the study rebuts a claim that an association between red meat consumption and CRC exists.

It's laughable that anybody could applaud her for such abject stupidity, but that's twitter.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2221337 19-Apr-2019 23:58

Studies never show this but my advice is choose your parents wisely.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2221338 20-Apr-2019 00:01

Aredwood:

Compared with those in the lowest category, participants in the highest category of reported total red-meat intake were slightly older, more likely to be smokers, had a higher BMI and body-fat percentage, had a higher alcohol intake and had lower intakes of fruit, vegetables and fibre. The same was true for processed-meat intake, with the exception of age, which was similar between the two categories.

So the conclusion is actually: People who smoke are more likely to get cancer.

No.

First line under "methods" states:

We used Cox-regression models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios

The fact that smoking causes cancer is easy to eliminate as a confounding factor, as is age, BMI etc.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2221341 20-Apr-2019 00:13

Batman: Studies never show this but my advice is choose your parents wisely.

FWIW, as far as cancer in general goes, heritability might account for about 20% of diagnoses. So for the other 4 out of 5 of us, choose your lotto numbers wisely might be a more accurate suggestion.

wizard

10 posts

Wannabe Geek
Inactive user

#2221430 20-Apr-2019 12:17

It's easy to get confused when reading scientific studies, especially when the findings go against conventional wisdom about health and nutrition etc. An important thing to remember is that trials are conducted on select groups of people who might not necessarily represent society at large. Some trials are also done under specific conditions, e.g. adhering to a strict diet or lifestyle which again might not reflect how we ordinarily eat/sleep/exercise etc. Reproducibility of results is also something I always look out for. I'm cautious when I come across claims of groundbreaking research that 'has never been done before' because for all you know, it will never be done again...but all that aside, research and innovation is definitely the way forward. the more we know, the better - usually.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2221628 21-Apr-2019 11:02

This wasn't a clinical "trial". It was extracted from data from a prospective cohort study with <500,000 participants.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2221689 21-Apr-2019 12:11

Fred99:
This wasn't a clinical "trial". It was extracted from data from a prospective cohort study with <500,000 participants.

Which is a clinical trial https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/find-a-clinical-trial/what-clinical-trials-are/types-of-clinical-trials#cohort

1 | 2 | 3