Pork tenderloin, a good alternative to chicken?
Replies
-
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
0 -
Anyone familiar with those red meat studies know if people were eating red meat AND veggies or red meat but few veggies? I remember wondering if there was more than one variable and the wrong one got blamed.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
This is what you actually said, which is a lot different than saying you'd choose the marginally increased odds of developing cancer due to red meat consumption. It was a pretty crass thing to say, IMO, as the daughter of a colon cancer survivor.DeguelloTex wrote: »As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.0 -
Well, given that eating red meat doesn't remotely guarantee cancer, it, at most, marginally increases the odds of getting it, I thought the meaning would be pretty clear. I guess not.DeguelloTex wrote: »
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
This is what you actually said, which is a lot different than saying you'd choose the marginally increased odds of developing cancer due to red meat consumption. It was a pretty crass thing to say, IMO, as the daughter of a colon cancer survivor.DeguelloTex wrote: »As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
I'll give your opinion about my crassness all the consideration it merits.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, given that eating red meat doesn't remotely guarantee cancer, it, at most, marginally increases the odds of getting it, I thought the meaning would be pretty clear. I guess not.DeguelloTex wrote: »
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
This is what you actually said, which is a lot different than saying you'd choose the marginally increased odds of developing cancer due to red meat consumption. It was a pretty crass thing to say, IMO, as the daughter of a colon cancer survivor.DeguelloTex wrote: »As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
I'll give your opinion about my crassness all the consideration it merits.
It was not at all clear. As the daughter of a mother who did not survive cancer, I also saw it is a, if not crass, then certainly not the cleverest thing to say. And judging by how agressively you defend yourself, I think you know it. The other poster did not say you are crass, but that you said something crass. Get the difference?
We can all say something incredibly stupid sometimes. The agony of others is not something to make light of.0 -
Wait, you're going to get all semantic on the difference between being crass and saying something crass, but then you're going to conflate the difference between between saying I'd take cancer over giving up red meat -- even if you take what I wrote absolutely literally -- with making light of someone's agony? Linguist heal thyself.Wiseandcurious wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, given that eating red meat doesn't remotely guarantee cancer, it, at most, marginally increases the odds of getting it, I thought the meaning would be pretty clear. I guess not.DeguelloTex wrote: »
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
This is what you actually said, which is a lot different than saying you'd choose the marginally increased odds of developing cancer due to red meat consumption. It was a pretty crass thing to say, IMO, as the daughter of a colon cancer survivor.DeguelloTex wrote: »As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
I'll give your opinion about my crassness all the consideration it merits.
It was not at all clear. As the daughter of a mother who did not survive cancer, I also saw it is a, if not crass, then certainly not the cleverest thing to say. And judging by how agressively you defend yourself, I think you know it. The other poster did not say you are crass, but that you said something crass. Get the difference?
We can all say something incredibly stupid sometimes. The agony of others is not something to make light of.
And, so we're all on the same page, I'm not interested in your experience or your opinion and won't lose a moment's sleep or change my worldview one iota because of either.
I've known people who've died via automobile, motorcycle, falling, gun, knife, Huntington's, cancer, stroke, blunt force trauma, IED, eating disorder, and I don't know what else. Hell, my dad has one kidney because of cancer and my paternal grandmother died of liver cancer. I don't have time to get all wound up about every potentially upsetting comment about all of that. If you do, live it up. Again, I'll give your opinion the consideration it merits.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Wait, you're going to get all semantic on the difference between being crass and saying something crass, but then you're going to conflate the difference between between saying I'd take cancer over giving up red meat -- even if you take what I wrote absolutely literally -- with making light of someone's agony? Linguist heal thyself.Wiseandcurious wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, given that eating red meat doesn't remotely guarantee cancer, it, at most, marginally increases the odds of getting it, I thought the meaning would be pretty clear. I guess not.DeguelloTex wrote: »
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
This is what you actually said, which is a lot different than saying you'd choose the marginally increased odds of developing cancer due to red meat consumption. It was a pretty crass thing to say, IMO, as the daughter of a colon cancer survivor.DeguelloTex wrote: »As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
I'll give your opinion about my crassness all the consideration it merits.
It was not at all clear. As the daughter of a mother who did not survive cancer, I also saw it is a, if not crass, then certainly not the cleverest thing to say. And judging by how agressively you defend yourself, I think you know it. The other poster did not say you are crass, but that you said something crass. Get the difference?
We can all say something incredibly stupid sometimes. The agony of others is not something to make light of.
And, so we're all on the same page, I'm not interested in your experience or your opinion and won't lose a moment's sleep or change my worldview one iota because of either.
I've known people who've died via automobile, motorcycle, falling, gun, knife, Huntington's, cancer, stroke, blunt force trauma, IED, eating disorder, and I don't know what else. Hell, my dad has one kidney because of cancer and my paternal grandmother died of liver cancer. I don't have time to get all wound up about every potentially upsetting comment about all of that. If you do, live it up. Again, I'll give your opinion the consideration it merits.
Just stop contradicting yourself. I think everyone would be fine with that.0 -
And I contradicted myself how, exactly?atypicalsmith wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Wait, you're going to get all semantic on the difference between being crass and saying something crass, but then you're going to conflate the difference between between saying I'd take cancer over giving up red meat -- even if you take what I wrote absolutely literally -- with making light of someone's agony? Linguist heal thyself.Wiseandcurious wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, given that eating red meat doesn't remotely guarantee cancer, it, at most, marginally increases the odds of getting it, I thought the meaning would be pretty clear. I guess not.DeguelloTex wrote: »
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
This is what you actually said, which is a lot different than saying you'd choose the marginally increased odds of developing cancer due to red meat consumption. It was a pretty crass thing to say, IMO, as the daughter of a colon cancer survivor.DeguelloTex wrote: »As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
I'll give your opinion about my crassness all the consideration it merits.
It was not at all clear. As the daughter of a mother who did not survive cancer, I also saw it is a, if not crass, then certainly not the cleverest thing to say. And judging by how agressively you defend yourself, I think you know it. The other poster did not say you are crass, but that you said something crass. Get the difference?
We can all say something incredibly stupid sometimes. The agony of others is not something to make light of.
And, so we're all on the same page, I'm not interested in your experience or your opinion and won't lose a moment's sleep or change my worldview one iota because of either.
I've known people who've died via automobile, motorcycle, falling, gun, knife, Huntington's, cancer, stroke, blunt force trauma, IED, eating disorder, and I don't know what else. Hell, my dad has one kidney because of cancer and my paternal grandmother died of liver cancer. I don't have time to get all wound up about every potentially upsetting comment about all of that. If you do, live it up. Again, I'll give your opinion the consideration it merits.
Just stop contradicting yourself. I think everyone would be fine with that.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
Closer to 0.049%.
Marginal risk increase was seen to be 18% for processed meats and *not significant* for pork at higher than 2 times a week. According to the study already posted above.
So the additional risk for processed meat would be .,.. 0.042% * 0.18% + 0.042% .... Eh, not even worth thinking about.
Pass the coppa.0 -
But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.0
-
I'd like to know what kind of "red meat" these studies focused on and what it was about the "red meat" that was problematic. I'd also like to know what other factors were controlled, or is this all based on that China study...
I'd also like to know what the heck constitutes red meat... Where do things like duck, ostrich, pidgeon and other game birds fit in? How does lean tenderlion compare to wagyu?
As someone pointed out already a "significant increase" doesn't necessarily mean that it's a major risk factor... going from 0.0005 to 0.001 really isn't going to be something that I would lose sleep over despite it being a 100% increase.
I eat a variety of meats, most of which would probably be considered "red". I'd go nuts if I had to live on chicken.0 -
Canada Food Guide. I had to go check just in case. It recommends meat alternatives "often", and at least two servings of fish a week. No word about white meat, red meat, or chicken other than, ".....provide protein, fat and many other important nutrients including iron, zinc, magnesium and B vitamins..."
See... this is where I have issues...
"don't eat red meat because cancer!" even though, yes the increase may be signficant, but it is still tiny
"eat lots of fish" even though heavy metal accumulation is (to me) a much more significant issue.
with IBS being diagnosed left right and centre with no-one really able to figure out why the heck so many people have significant digestive issues, I don't understand why they are pointing fingers at the one foodstuff that has remained pretty constant and unchanged since man started munching anything he could catch.
Even individual countries can't agree on what is right, what is detrimental and what is good, so... yeah.0 -
MonsoonStorm wrote: »I'd like to know what kind of "red meat" these studies focused on and what it was about the "red meat" that was problematic. I'd also like to know what other factors were controlled, or is this all based on that China study...
I'd also like to know what the heck constitutes red meat... Where do things like duck, ostrich, pidgeon and other game birds fit in? How does lean tenderlion compare to wagyu?
As someone pointed out already a "significant increase" doesn't necessarily mean that it's a major risk factor... going from 0.0005 to 0.001 really isn't going to be something that I would lose sleep over despite it being a 100% increase.
I eat a variety of meats, most of which would probably be considered "red". I'd go nuts if I had to live on chicken.
Read the study? It's posted upstream.
And no, has nothing to do with the China Study.0 -
But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
Closer to 0.049%.
Marginal risk increase was seen to be 18% for processed meats and *not significant* for pork at higher than 2 times a week. According to the study already posted above.
So the additional risk for processed meat would be .,.. 0.042% * 0.18% + 0.042% .... Eh, not even worth thinking about.
Pass the coppa.
uhm, you should take into account that the risk of colorectal cancer increases with age.
So, according to:
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/detailedguide/colorectal-cancer-key-statistics
"The lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is about 1 in 20 (5%)"
anyway, moderation! pass the coppa to me too
0 -
still ploughing through the study...
immediate thoughts for me:
1) red and processed meats are bundled together, there is no distinction made in the abstract
2) there is no indication of how said meats were cooked (anyone else remember the whole "burnt bits cause cancer" thing?
3) they do not take into account environmental factors... where do they live? does their job/lifestyle expose them to chemicals that could be deemed hazardous?
4) there *seems* to be no indication of cancer types... just "cancer", does this include cervical cancer etc where the risk is increased by exposure to the HPV virus? Lung cancer due to asbestos exposure? Much of the data was collected "through death registry", so there's no real indication of histories or causes... My dad "technically" died of a heart attack. This brought about by a clot caused my undiagnosed stomach cancer that had run rampant. Many of his work colleagues have also succumbed to cancer in recent years (he worked in a printing factory). What is the true cause there?
5) in the actual discussion at the end they separate the processed and red meat groups:
however they then go on to point out the cholesterol/saturated fat levels of processed meats being a possible factor in this, along with the processing introducing potential carcinogens.In contrast to the US results, we observed a consistent association between processed meat consumption and total mortality but not between red meat consumption and total mortality.
6) in regards to #5 - there is no distinction between the types of red meat... are we talking pork tenderloin, wagyu beef or ribs?
7) Physical activity is mentioned in the abstract, but it would seem that the participants simply had to tick a box "sedentary, active, moderately active" etc... how did they account for changes in levels of activity? There was seemingly no real testing of heart health (hard to tell)
8) some countries based their intake on a 7 day food diary, others on a "habitual diet over the past 12 months"... neither is particularly reliable or indicative.
9) Whilst recruitment happened from 1992 - 2000, the actual data collecting only occurred once a year for 4 years. is 4 years worth of data *REALLY* going to give any indication of how lifestyle affects things that happen long term (heart attacks, cancer etc take a lot longer than 4 yrs to show up...) There is zero data on lifestyle before this 4 years worth of data collection.
Not a life-changing study in my opinion.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
So is living your life in fear of doing anything that might marginally increase risks. At a cursory glance, the rate of colon cancer appears to be 42.4 per 100,000, so 0.0424%. If eating red meat X times per week made it 50% (!!!) more likely that I'd get colon cancer, that would make my odds 0.0636%. Pass the steak, por favor.allbarrett wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I grill pork loin a lot. That and chicken breast are my go-tos during the day with more beefy stuff in the evening. I've never found any that is leaner than chicken breast, though.
It makes me sad that people overcook pork. It doesn't have to be cooked until it's gray; pink is fine.
As between having red meat two times or less per week or colon cancer, I'd choose cancer.
My father just lost a foot (+/-) of his colon to cancer. Believe me, you actually wouldn't choose it. The side effects can be...extremely unpleasant.
Closer to 0.049%.
Marginal risk increase was seen to be 18% for processed meats and *not significant* for pork at higher than 2 times a week. According to the study already posted above.
So the additional risk for processed meat would be .,.. 0.042% * 0.18% + 0.042% .... Eh, not even worth thinking about.
Pass the coppa.
uhm, you should take into account that the risk of colorectal cancer increases with age.
So, according to:
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/detailedguide/colorectal-cancer-key-statistics
"The lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is about 1 in 20 (5%)"
anyway, moderation! pass the coppa to me too
Ok, so from 5% to 5.9% in the general population. (Actually 5% IS pretty high, worth looking in the cofactor)...
Oh, look, that confound IBS, smokers, etc...
More coppa!
0 -
MonsoonStorm wrote: »Not a life-changing study in my opinion.
Actually, it is not just a single study, there is a body of medical literature on the link between cancer and red/processed meat. The mechanism is still not well understood though:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25975275
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »MonsoonStorm wrote: »Not a life-changing study in my opinion.
Actually, it is not just a single study, there is a body of medical literature on the link between cancer and red/processed meat. The mechanism is still not well understood though:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25975275
I get that, even that study I was quoting was a culmination of different studies in essence, but as I pointed out the red/processed meat thing really needs to be distinguished.
Even this study basically shows that. Without seeing the full study and having a degree in biochemistry in order to understand the pathways they are discussing in detail then I can't really say much about that abstract
Red meat has been demonized, but the studies seem to point more towards processed meat being more of an issue in regards to cancer.
0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.0 -
Let's say that for the red meat the villain seems to be the cooking method:MonsoonStorm wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »MonsoonStorm wrote: »Not a life-changing study in my opinion.
Actually, it is not just a single study, there is a body of medical literature on the link between cancer and red/processed meat. The mechanism is still not well understood though:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25975275
I get that, even that study I was quoting was a culmination of different studies in essence, but as I pointed out the red/processed meat thing really needs to be distinguished.
Even this study basically shows that. Without seeing the full study and having a degree in biochemistry in order to understand the pathways they are discussing in detail then I can't really say much about that abstract
Red meat has been demonized, but the studies seem to point more towards processed meat being more of an issue in regards to cancer.
http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet
0 -
In Okinawa, there is a community where more people live to be over 100 than anywhere else in the world. Their diet consists of primarily plant based food, but they do include pork in their diet in small amounts. One would think, in Japan, that they would be eating fish, but that is not the case.
bluezones.com0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Let's say that for the red meat the villain seems to be the cooking method:MonsoonStorm wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »MonsoonStorm wrote: »Not a life-changing study in my opinion.
Actually, it is not just a single study, there is a body of medical literature on the link between cancer and red/processed meat. The mechanism is still not well understood though:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25975275
I get that, even that study I was quoting was a culmination of different studies in essence, but as I pointed out the red/processed meat thing really needs to be distinguished.
Even this study basically shows that. Without seeing the full study and having a degree in biochemistry in order to understand the pathways they are discussing in detail then I can't really say much about that abstract
Red meat has been demonized, but the studies seem to point more towards processed meat being more of an issue in regards to cancer.
http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet
That's what I thought I recalled seeing quite a long time ago (before I paid any real interest to such things), which is why I brought up the cooking method issue earlier.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.0 -
47Jacqueline wrote: »In Okinawa, there is a community where more people live to be over 100 than anywhere else in the world. Their diet consists of primarily plant based food, but they do include pork in their diet in small amounts. One would think, in Japan, that they would be eating fish, but that is not the case.
That community is also based on an island. Genetic diversity (or lack thereof) would also need to be taken in to account, along with the many other things that exist in standard western diets that aren't prevalent in their diet.
Meat isn't the only thing that is reduced in their diet. They also consume fewer calories in general and are more active and live fairly stress-free lives in comparison (i.e. they maintain a fairly healthy lifestyle).
Less sugar, less grains, less meat, less dairy, less stress - pick your villain.0 -
47Jacqueline wrote: »In Okinawa, there is a community where more people live to be over 100 than anywhere else in the world. Their diet consists of primarily plant based food, but they do include pork in their diet in small amounts. One would think, in Japan, that they would be eating fish, but that is not the case.
bluezones.com
Lots of woo on that site.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »47Jacqueline wrote: »In Okinawa, there is a community where more people live to be over 100 than anywhere else in the world. Their diet consists of primarily plant based food, but they do include pork in their diet in small amounts. One would think, in Japan, that they would be eating fish, but that is not the case.
bluezones.com
Lots of woo on that site.
What is woo?0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...
when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..
which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions