Red meat can kill!!!!

PaleoPath4Lyfe · March 2012

There is actual real evidence to suggest that eating too much processed red meat, particularly smoked bacon and sausages, can increase the risk of bowel cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15956652?dopt=Abstract. But if you just have your bacon sandwich with granary bread containing lots of fibre then you'll be fine.

A good overview of diet and cancer http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/causes/lifestyle/diet/#source37

It really is everything in moderation and making healthy choices. The most important thing to prevent deaths from bowel cancer is to see you doctor if you have a change in your bowel habit (particularly getting diarrhoea) or blood in your poo.

The Daily Mail (a daily paper in the UK) is famous for finding things that cause cancer. Go to http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ before you eat or do anything to work out your chances

Pork is not considered red meat and bacon and sausages are processed, but steaks are not or should not be anyway......

mamamc03 · March 2012

everything in moderation!

including moderation

As the famously immoderate Greeks said!

moderaters are likely moderating this moderatory moderation.

callmeBAM · March 2012

Watch a movie called Forks Over Knives on Netflix.

I quit all meet except chicken some time ago. It took quite some time for the transformation to happen, but I eat mostly a plant based diet.

Forks Over Knives. I watched it and something felt weird. I did my own research and came to the conclusion that it's a big propaganda piece that cherry picks studies and scientists to supports it's cause. It is not objective by any means and I feel it was very misleading.

Athijade · March 2012

Watch a movie called Forks Over Knives on Netflix.

I quit all meet except chicken some time ago. It took quite some time for the transformation to happen, but I eat mostly a plant based diet.

Forks Over Knives. I watched it and something felt weird. I did my own research and came to the conclusion that it's a big propaganda piece that cherry picks studies and scientists to supports it's cause. It is not objective by any means and I feel it was very misleading.

That is true of most documentaries. People need to really stop taking them as the hard truth every time they see one. Use them as a starting point and then do your own research. Otherwise, just use them as the entertainment they are.

Sidesteal · March 2012

That is true of most documentaries. People need to really stop taking them as the hard truth every time they see one. Use them as a starting point and then do your own research. Otherwise, just use them as the entertainment they are.

^ I agree.

Emili03 · March 2012

Well that's the latest health scare in the news today anyway.

Can i just start banging my head against a wall now, in readiness for the next one. Every week, something is really bad for you, and the next it's good.

I can't keep up!!

I'll carry on down the "everything in moderation" route I think :-)

Precisely! I mean, I have to have red meat to keep my iron count up. Everything else...ie. beans etc has blockers in it that can potentially keep your body from absorbing iron.

DPernet · March 2012

Personally I'd take that one with a pinch of salt because i......

noooo.....you touch salt and you will die a horrible painful death....and don't even mention sugar....shhhhhhh :laugh:

RobynC79 · March 2012

This thread hurts my brain. Just because you don't like the implication of the study does not mean it was poorly conducted. stupid, irrelevant or otherwise. Scientists are generally quite careful about what they do - just because their findings offend you personally doesn't mean their work is cr*p - generally it means the study has been reported in the press sensationally.

For example:

it was NOT a controlled experiment, merely an observational one based on crunching data from general health questionnaires used by other organisations. Also an association is not a cause.....and nowhere in the study does it say what *else* those people were eating.

Longitudinal diet studies are almost never manipulative (i.e., two groups are assigned to each eat one type of diet), they are almost always based on observation and post-hoc number crunching. That doesn't mean it wasn't 'controlled' - accounting for covariates and confounds are most of what the number crunching is. And, just to clear this perennial accusation up, scientists are very much aware of the difference between correlation and causation.

How is this inflammation caused in the first place? Just interesting

Viral/bacterial infection, typically.

The inflammation related to dietary and other 'sterile' factors is not generally associated with infection. Inflammation occurs as a natural process that is far more widely utilised by the body than as a pathogen-fighting response.

And applying logic ... who died of it so far? Just 'cos someone's test tube uncontrolled badly managed study says so, doesn't mean its true or actually in real life is even a factor in conjunction with everything else that goes off...

Again, just because the findings are not to your liking, does not mean the study was poorly conducted or controlled. There is enough anti-science sentiment in the western world already. We're actually not out to screw you over with bad science.

I bet this study had an agenda. I bet the researchers are vegans, lol.

Unlikely - such a long-term study is followed, analysed and conducted by many different scientists over its course. The probability of them being 1. vegans and also 2. vegans with an agenda to publish biased science, is very unlikely.

Did they run an ANOVA on all the variables? I would be interested to see the correlations.

They almost certainly would have analysed the covariate structure, which is probably not carefully reported in the press. ANOVA and correlation are quite different, however.

re: Forks over Knives:

That is true of most documentaries. People need to really stop taking them as the hard truth every time they see one. Use them as a starting point and then do your own research. Otherwise, just use them as the entertainment they are.

Hallelujah! If you're looking for bias, agenda and improperly analysed data, look no further. The probability that this study is suffering from any of those flaws is far, far smaller than the probability that a propaganda piece such as this doco is.

Seriously, can we ever have a thread about a published study that doesn't automatically devolve into science bashing? It's disheartening. I work hard at my job trying to publish work that is of use to society. Most of us do the same every day, and do a very careful job of it. Can we get a little respect here???

marsellient · March 2012

You know I was thinking...............

I wonder if this study was done with grain fed beef (which cows were not meant to eat because they are ruminant animals) or with their natural food, grass fed and free pastured?

I am willing to bet this study was done using grain fed cattle.

And the difference in nutritional value that you're implying
I'm aware that corn a grain feed along with large numbers of cattle cramped together at feedlots is largely responsible for the increased levels of e-coli, are there other implications?

Ruminants' systems are designed to eat grass. Grass fed beef has a higher proportion of omega-3 fats. Feed lot cattle are, amongst other things, fed a diet of corn and other grains.

As for the study, the article I read said the participants ate meat every day. As far as I could see no other dietary factors were considered. Fries with that??

lickmybaconcakes · March 2012

pretty much anything can kill you in certain circumstances,(note the probability of these outcomes are of a low union , so the risks are worth taking in these cases.)

Carries on eating bacon.

JNick77 · March 2012

Well that's the latest health scare in the news today anyway.

Can i just start banging my head against a wall now, in readiness for the next one. Every week, something is really bad for you, and the next it's good.

I can't keep up!!

I'll carry on down the "everything in moderation" route I think :-)

Oh noes... not da red meat!! I'm so worried now I think I'll have a cigarette.

delilah47 · March 2012

Yes and here is another just posted today..
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/523792-124-ways-sugar-ruin-your-health

mangozulu · March 2012

The academic community is pretty much in agreement about this. It's popular perception and propaganda from industry that profits from the sale of red meat that dissents. Not entirely unlike the scenario we see with science of climate change and the Republican party (conservative agenda, whatever you want to call it).

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-red-meat-20120313,0,565423.story

delilah47 · March 2012

@ RobynC79

I don't think anyone is "science bashing". There are so many "studies". Each one designed to produce a previously suspected outcome. And, there is no way a person can tell who, or how qualified or the intent of a group of researchers would be. Are they promoting a specific lifestyle or product? Are they attempting to make quality of life better? It depends on who they work for and what their employer's ultimate purpose is all about.

Look at this supposed list of facts going on right now in our message boards:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/523792-124-ways-sugar-ruin-your-health

Does that look like a set of researched facts to you?

I think you are being a little sensitive to the opinions posted here. You are probably a very intelligent and trustworthy person and you shouldn't take the opinions here as a personal attacks.

2012asv · March 2012

HAHAH! good one!
My husband came home last night and I swear that was the first thing he said to me... DONT COOK RED MEAT!
it was funny :P

RobynC79 · March 2012

@ RobynC79

I don't think anyone is "science bashing". There are so many "studies". Each one designed to produce a previously suspected outcome. And, there is no way a person can tell who, or how qualified or the intent of a group of researchers would be. Are they promoting a specific lifestyle or product? Are they attempting to make quality of life better? It depends on who they work for and what their employer's ultimate purpose is all about.

Look at this supposed list of facts going on right now in our message boards:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/523792-124-ways-sugar-ruin-your-health

Does that look like a set of researched facts to you?

I think you are being a little sensitive to the opinions posted here. You are probably a very intelligent and trustworthy person and you shouldn't take the opinions here as a personal attacks.

Yeah, I'm not taking it bitterly personally, I'm just exasperated at how frequently (as you mention!) these sorts of threads come up, with the same old, same old responses about how scientists are all actually idiots who don't know anything because the poster's grandmother's best friend's child once had an experience TOTALLY DIFFERENT from what the study said (I'm sure you know the type!!

Also, if you want to check the qualifications, affiliations or potential conflicts of interest for any of scientists listed as authors, a quick google will usually get you that info right away - it's required with every published study and usually listed on their academic websites too.

SilentRenegade · March 2012

everything in moderation!

including moderation

As the famously immoderate Greeks said!

moderaters are likely moderating this moderatory moderation.