News report = red meat and processed meats cause cancer
Replies
-
You can take my burnt rib ends when you can pry them from my cold, dead... greasy, bbq sauce tinged hands.
Bring a bib.0 -
Oops I ate burnt toast and butter. Will that give me cancer too?0
-
-
All jokes aside though, if my experiences in the world of cancer have taught me anything, it's that while you should definitely take steps to avoid things that blatantly cause cancer (radioactive materials, long sunlight exposure, etc), you simply can't spend your time worrying about getting cancer from every other thing. The one thing cancer makes you realize most of all is how short life can be, so it's best not to spend the time you have cancer-free worrying about how you're going to get it.0
-
snowflake954 wrote: »A nutritionist was on a program here in Italy several years ago When asked about the cancer risk in foods he answered "you can't avoid it, so it's best to spread the risk around"---in other words, don't always eat the same thing everyday. Eating alot of the same food day after day puts you at risk for undesiderable effects from that food. I thought it was good advice.
This seems right. Red meat 3x /week cuts down on eating too much fish (Yay for omegas if it's fatty, but oh noes re mercury) or eggs and shrimp etc (low cal, high protein, but high cholesterol, which recent research says isn't worth worrying about; I'm not so prepared to let it go), and chicken (just tastes gross).
Veggie days are worth it when possible, although that means funny guts for me, and eating twice as much as I do on days I eat meat.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I have no issues whatsoever with a breakfast of bacon and eggs, a dinner of black and blue New York strip, and then some ice cream for dessert.I think the thing I find the most fascinating about these reports of late is the risks that people are willing to take. For example, I've seen a few posts from people (in general, not talking solely about MFP) who are staunch low carb advocates because sugar will kill you just completely dismiss this, whereas they preach the WHO sugar recommendations as gospel.
The WHO, the egg-haters, and the meat-haters can all pound sand.
I don't think they 're much bothered though, it's your colon that might kick up a fuss . (Might.)0 -
This doesn't bother me in the least. I love bacon, bbq and beef and will continue to eat them. In fact I have a quarter beef on order.0
-
Meanwhile, in Argentina...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/26/argentina-react-report-linking-meat-cancer-carcinogen?CMP=fb_us?CMP=fb_us
It looks like they're reacting much of the same way!
0 -
I think it takes 2 to 3 days for your body to digest red mean and 2 to 3 hours to digest chicken. Does that mean anything? I don't know.0
-
southhamptonmike wrote: »I think it takes 2 to 3 days for your body to digest red mean and 2 to 3 hours to digest chicken. Does that mean anything? I don't know.
No that's wrong.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »southhamptonmike wrote: »I think it takes 2 to 3 days for your body to digest red mean and 2 to 3 hours to digest chicken. Does that mean anything? I don't know.
No that's wrong.
I glanced quickly and found...
red meat....24 to 72 hours
chicken...3 to 4 hours
I eat red meat sparingly due to some digestive issues and sitting in my stomach too long.
Why do you think that is wrong? Can you point me in the right direction to find more info?0 -
Apart from that you don't eat chicken or red meat alone with nothing else and your body doesn't selectively digest things, digestion takes a while to complete.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/digestive-system/expert-answers/faq-20058340
You don't poop your chicken parmesan out 3 hours after eating.
Well, maybe if you didn't cook it through.0 -
Can I just get real for a moment?
Politics =/= Real life
Now pass me some bacon, hot dogs, and some pastrami!0 -
The WHO report is about the classification of various compounds and products that are carcinogenic. The media has been extremely irresponsible, as usual, in reporting this properly. You have to understand what the classification system means. It is OK to eat read meat/bacon/burger as part of your diet.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Apart from that you don't eat chicken or red meat alone with nothing else and your body doesn't selectively digest things, digestion takes a while to complete.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/digestive-system/expert-answers/faq-20058340
You don't poop your chicken parmesan out 3 hours after eating.
Well, maybe if you didn't cook it through.
If uncooked chicken parm it may come out in 3 hours. You may not be able to predict how it exits though.0 -
I try to only eat game meat (I'm a hunter) or animals I have raised myself. We raise several dozen broiler chickens every year. The game meat is amazing because it is very low in fat and very high in protein, plus you know what your eating and where it comes from!0
-
I picked a good time to go pescatarian. Red meat has always made me sick to my stomach.
However, as others have said, the report is hugely misleading and eating red meat as part of a balanced diet likely won't affect cancer risk. Enjoy your bacon, guys and gals 0 -
I try to only eat game meat (I'm a hunter) or animals I have raised myself. We raise several dozen broiler chickens every year. The game meat is amazing because it is very low in fat and very high in protein, plus you know what your eating and where it comes from!
We eat a fair share of game meat as well. I wish there was data on whether it has a lower correlation to disease than commercial red meat. I've never been able to find any.0 -
This is all because saturated fats were vindicated. Now the WHO is digging deep to find some other reason to discourage meat eating.
0 -
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I try to only eat game meat (I'm a hunter) or animals I have raised myself. We raise several dozen broiler chickens every year. The game meat is amazing because it is very low in fat and very high in protein, plus you know what your eating and where it comes from!
We eat a fair share of game meat as well. I wish there was data on whether it has a lower correlation to disease than commercial red meat. I've never been able to find any.
good luck finding funding for that one...I can't think of many regulatory agencies or else who would want to encourage hunting as a replacement for commercial red meat.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I try to only eat game meat (I'm a hunter) or animals I have raised myself. We raise several dozen broiler chickens every year. The game meat is amazing because it is very low in fat and very high in protein, plus you know what your eating and where it comes from!
We eat a fair share of game meat as well. I wish there was data on whether it has a lower correlation to disease than commercial red meat. I've never been able to find any.
good luck finding funding for that one...I can't think of many regulatory agencies or else who would want to encourage hunting as a replacement for commercial red meat.
Maybe the NRA or Remington would be willing to fund this study?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Do you disagree?
Contrary to traditional dietary advice, almost all long term studies done on saturated fat haven't shown any reason to avoid it. This is actually old news.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/01/does-dietary-saturated-fat-increase.html
But the information has slowly been trickling into the mainstream and gaining more traction in the media. So now political organizations like WHO need to find other reasons for us to avoid the evils of eating meat. The fact that they tried to lump eating red meat in with smoking is absolutely hilarious.
None of these epidemiology studies performed are actually controlling for all possible confounders. And I wonder what real mortality difference is caused by that 1% increase in risk of colon cancer (if it's even caused by red meat). I would be much more interested in the risk of metastatic colon CA that leads to death versus simply needing a polyp removed.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Do you disagree?
Contrary to traditional dietary advice, almost all long term studies done on saturated fat haven't shown any reason to avoid it. This is actually old news.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/01/does-dietary-saturated-fat-increase.html
But the information has slowly been trickling into the mainstream and gaining more traction in the media. So now political organizations like WHO need to find other reasons for us to avoid the evils of eating meat. The fact that they tried to lump eating red meat in with smoking is absolutely hilarious.
None of these epidemiology studies performed are actually controlling for all possible confounders. And I wonder what real mortality difference is caused by that 1% increase in risk of colon cancer (if it's even caused by red meat). I would be much more interested in the risk of metastatic colon CA that leads to death versus simply needing a polyp removed.
I don't agree or disagree because I never thought saturated fats needed vindication. I'm still not really sure of your point, but your post has a conspiracy theory tone so nevermind.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Do you disagree?
Contrary to traditional dietary advice, almost all long term studies done on saturated fat haven't shown any reason to avoid it. This is actually old news.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/01/does-dietary-saturated-fat-increase.html
But the information has slowly been trickling into the mainstream and gaining more traction in the media. So now political organizations like WHO need to find other reasons for us to avoid the evils of eating meat. The fact that they tried to lump eating red meat in with smoking is absolutely hilarious.
None of these epidemiology studies performed are actually controlling for all possible confounders. And I wonder what real mortality difference is caused by that 1% increase in risk of colon cancer (if it's even caused by red meat). I would be much more interested in the risk of metastatic colon CA that leads to death versus simply needing a polyp removed.
part of the problem is who is "fighting" with you on sat fats. A lot of that comes with support from the Paleo crowd, which then gets it dismissed by a lot people.0 -
Here's something on the saturated fat issue: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/
So it's not quite the "vindication" that was reported. It is generally true that the studies that are most relied on for this are long-term epidemiological studies showing correlations and there are other reasons for correlation beyond an actual casual effect. However, the same sorts of shortcomings (if one sees it as a shortcoming) are true about most dietary stuff.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Here's something on the saturated fat issue: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/
So it's not quite the "vindication" that was reported. It is generally true that the studies that are most relied on for this are long-term epidemiological studies showing correlations and there are other reasons for correlation beyond an actual casual effect. However, the same sorts of shortcomings (if one sees it as a shortcoming) are true about most dietary stuff.
From what I've seen of various reviews of the existing literature, the problem isn't so much saturated fat increasing heart disease, but that people tend to using saturated fats tend to replace polyunsaturated fats in their diet with them. This lack of polyunsaturated fats may be the reason that saturated fat appears associated with heart disease in epidemiological studies.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Here's something on the saturated fat issue: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/
So it's not quite the "vindication" that was reported. It is generally true that the studies that are most relied on for this are long-term epidemiological studies showing correlations and there are other reasons for correlation beyond an actual casual effect. However, the same sorts of shortcomings (if one sees it as a shortcoming) are true about most dietary stuff.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I've always heard. That if you replace some of your saturated fat with unsaturated fat you will reduce your risk of heart disease. I think that is the recommendation from health agencies. And hardly seems like that something that would need vindication. It's not like they are saying "eat no saturated fat".0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think that is the recommendation from health agencies. And hardly seems like that something that would need vindication. It's not like they are saying "eat no saturated fat".
LOL, were you born yesterday? Seriously, I was taught the lipid hypothesis in medical school. And that wasn't that long ago!
It's funny that most recommendations now say to replace saturated fat with unsaturated fat, even though you could get the exact same benefit by replacing carbs with unsaturated fat. Unsaturated fat is healthy. It's good for you no matter what you replace with it. But dietary recommendations just can't get over saturated fat.
Now that all the studies vindicating sat fat as the top source of of heart disease have finally had a major impact on global diets, the WHO had to find some other reason to demonize red meat.
BTW, the majority of the quality studies in the WHO's meta-analysis did not find any correlation between red meat and cancer. 7/15 did find a weak correlation. But that's pretty weak given how many possible confounders there are. And once again, colon CA here could simply mean removing a polyp. The increased risk of death is probably insignificant.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think that is the recommendation from health agencies. And hardly seems like that something that would need vindication. It's not like they are saying "eat no saturated fat".
LOL, were you born yesterday? Seriously, I was taught the lipid hypothesis in medical school. And that wasn't that long ago!
It's funny that most recommendations now say to replace saturated fat with unsaturated fat, even though you could get the exact same benefit by replacing carbs with unsaturated fat. Unsaturated fat is healthy. It's good for you no matter what you replace with it. But dietary recommendations just can't get over saturated fat.
Now that all the studies vindicating sat fat as the top source of of heart disease have finally had a major impact on global diets, the WHO had to find some other reason to demonize red meat.
BTW, the majority of the quality studies in the WHO's meta-analysis did not find any correlation between red meat and cancer. 7/15 did find a weak correlation. But that's pretty weak given how many possible confounders there are. And once again, colon CA here could simply mean removing a polyp. The increased risk of death is probably insignificant.
Red meat was listed as a category 2A. Processed meat is category 1. No one is debating the IARC's standards for labeling possible carcinogen are low.
They also did not make the recommendations based purely on meta-analysis of epidemiological data. They also had animal models for various compounds found in red and processed meat.
I'd also ask, will replacing any carb what-so-ever with any unsaturated fat what-so-ever have that health impact? What about replacing fiber (a carb) with monounsaturated (I won't even be underhanded and talk about unsaturated trans fat)?
I'd also like to know, what is the end game of vilifying red meat in a smear campaign? Will getting people to stop eating it make agenda 21 real? Will it let China conquer the US by decoupling oil prices from the USD and causing crude to be sold in Yuan?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions