Myfitnesspal

Message Boards General Health, Fitness and Diet
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Pork tenderloin, a good alternative to chicken?

1468910

Replies

  • Mellouk89Mellouk89 Member Posts: 21 Member Member Posts: 21 Member
    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.
  • MonsoonStormMonsoonStorm Member Posts: 371 Member Member Posts: 371 Member
    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.
  • MonsoonStormMonsoonStorm Member Posts: 371 Member Member Posts: 371 Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    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.
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Member Posts: 24,373 Member Member Posts: 24,373 Member
    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.
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Member Posts: 24,373 Member Member Posts: 24,373 Member
    Mellouk89 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.
  • Gianfranco_RGianfranco_R Member Posts: 1,297 Member Member Posts: 1,297 Member
    allbarrett 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.
    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.

    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 :smile:
    edited June 2015
  • MonsoonStormMonsoonStorm Member Posts: 371 Member Member Posts: 371 Member
    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:
    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.
    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.
    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.
    edited June 2015
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Member Posts: 24,373 Member Member Posts: 24,373 Member
    allbarrett 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.
    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.

    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 :smile:

    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!
  • Gianfranco_RGianfranco_R Member Posts: 1,297 Member Member Posts: 1,297 Member
    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
  • atypicalsmithatypicalsmith Member Posts: 2,742 Member Member Posts: 2,742 Member
    Mellouk89 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.
  • MonsoonStormMonsoonStorm Member Posts: 371 Member Member Posts: 371 Member
    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.
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Member Posts: 24,373 Member Member Posts: 24,373 Member
    Mellouk89 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.
  • Gianfranco_RGianfranco_R Member Posts: 1,297 Member Member Posts: 1,297 Member
    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.
    Let's say that for the red meat the villain seems to be the cooking method:
    http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet
  • 47Jacqueline47Jacqueline Member Posts: 7,033 Member Member Posts: 7,033 Member
    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
  • MonsoonStormMonsoonStorm Member Posts: 371 Member Member Posts: 371 Member
    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.
    Let's say that for the red meat the villain seems to be the cooking method:
    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.
  • atypicalsmithatypicalsmith Member Posts: 2,742 Member Member Posts: 2,742 Member
    Mellouk89 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.
  • MonsoonStormMonsoonStorm Member Posts: 371 Member Member Posts: 371 Member
    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.
    edited June 2015
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Member Posts: 24,373 Member Member Posts: 24,373 Member
    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.
  • atypicalsmithatypicalsmith Member Posts: 2,742 Member Member Posts: 2,742 Member
    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?
  • Christine_72Christine_72 Member Posts: 16,056 Member Member Posts: 16,056 Member
    Mellouk89 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
Sign In or Register to comment.