Latest Study: Red Meats = Cancer!!!

[vicarious]

Well, I've just read an MSN article that outlines another study "associating" eating red meat and/or processed meats with an elevated risk for colorectal cancer and a host of other cancers as well. Here's the link:

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/cancer/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100183943 (http://health.msn.com/health-topics/cancer/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100183943)

Not much information, unfortunately, about how they came to their conclusions. I happen to love red meat. I took a little trip to the Eades's blogs, and apparently they haven't addressed it yet. Has anyone else read anything about this study who can give some perspective? I've been reading Taubes's book, Good Calories, Bad Calories, and I'm a little skeptical about studies insinuating causal links where there aren't control groups and a strict adherance to the scientific method.:peeved:

Bill Campbell

[Cinnamon Blue]

The study looked at meat consumption habits and other lifestyle choices such as smoking and exercise. What about genes? There’s no mention of genetics.

Processed meats are baddies, even I as a vegetarian know that. But the article doesn’t mention the source of the red meat, i.e. grain- or grass-fed. So many animals for eating are pumped full of hormones, antibiotics and goodness knows what else that it could well be that cocktails of unnatural chemicals causing problems. Dairy cows full of rBGH likely also make it to the food chain.

A study of the difference between grain-fed/chemically enhanced animals and grass-fed/non-chemically enhanced cattle on the risk of cancer could be of interest – but there would be too much opposition or any negative results would be disputed/buried.

[Gaelen]

Hi, vicarious.
Dr. Mike did address this study in his blog, maybe two months ago.
And it's not exactly breaking research...this information has been out for around four to five years.

I spent 25+ years as a vegetarian. Even when I started added meat back into my diet, I still eat only minimal amounts of red meat (maybe once or twice a month.) I did everything this study would indicate would *prevent* cancer.

I was diagnosed with stage IV rectal cancer, already mets'd to my liver, in April 2004. I had no symptoms until about 8 weeks prior to diagnosis, was too young for the recommended screening protocols, and didn't realize at the time that I had a family history. So much for vegetarian eating protecting you from cancer in the face of genetics. :rollyeyes:

I still eat mainly meatless, get most of my protein from seafood and organic dairy, and do it mainly because it's the kind of food I prefer to eat. But that said, the link between red meat and cancer is not a 100% straight line that red meat consumption leads direct to cancer. Processed meats are not good for you in excess--but again, depends on the definition of excess and the kind of processing.

You might try searching Mike's blog for the posts...there were several discussing this study.

[mcsblues]

Hi Bill and welcome.

Gaelen, Mike hasn't got around to this one yet - it was only published on the 11th of this month, and he may not bother given his dissection of similar papers in the past, but as someone asked me about it last week I might just cut and paste (yes low carbing doesn't cure laziness!)

First the study;

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040325

and the cut and paste (sorry about the 'Yank' bit! ;))

Just a few years ... or maybe decades ... ago, I took a unit of statistics and associated (non medical) maths at uni. It was pretty boring but the lecturer had one joke (actually, now that I think about it I had a few teachers/lecturers who had one joke!!) - anyway his involved two observational studies (like the one you posted) - one looked at the stork population of a particular island, and the other one examined human birth rates for the same place ... over the same period ... and wouldn't you know it a large increase in stork numbers was associated with a baby boom ... (yes, as you can imagine we were rolling in the aisles! :rolleyes: ;) )

The point is all that an observational or epidemiological study is good for (if anything) is to generate hypotheses for a controlled study - without that all you have is association - maybe umbrellas cause it to rain, maybe ambulances cause accidents ... and maybe storks deliver babies :wink: - but unless you can come up with a mechanism to show how this might happen and devise a test in which all other variables are eliminated to see whether the two things are connected in practice (causation not association) ... you may as well sign up for the stork delivery method, because it has just as much scientific credibility.

Now my mate Mike would probably explain the meat/ cancer thing better (and being a polite Yank he would say it is "BS" :) ) but before I let him do that ... did you notice that hidden in the paper (but not regarded as newsworthy of course) is the little gem that some cancers were found to be inversely associated with red meat consumption!! (if we are to take the authors seriously, if you want to avoid getting endometrial cancer, leukaemia and melanoma then eat up big on the steaks and bacon, OK buddy? :lol:)

They also got a bit confused about what was or wasn't processed meat (as distinct from just ordinary red meat) so they included ham and bacon ... in both categories!! :rolleyes: :p

OK Mike has tackled other (similar) "BS" before;

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/08/30/colon-cancer-and-red-meat/
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/09/04/more-on-red-meat-and-colon-cancer/

Oh yes, if you want to look at a much more interesting but freely admitted unproven cancer association then check out the latest Vitamin D Council newsletter;

http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/newsletter/2008-jan.shtml

- personally I'm still hanging on to the pretty girl hypothesis! :)

[chip]

All the article says is people who eat a lot of meat have more cancer than people who eat less meat. It's simplistic to suggest not eating meat will protect you from cancer, although that's the inference. Maybe those who eat less meat as a group also eat less junk carbohydrates. I avoid red meat strictly because I used to be in the meat processing business and know what goes into meat.

[laughingW]

I do with this what Dr. Eades does if it's an observational epidemiological study.

I ignore it.

Because I'm not a researcher who could then go on to test the hypothesis raised by the study.

And part 2, I lose respect for the "scientist" and the press who sent the hypothesis out as a press release as if it were a scientifically tested conclusion.

[maxlharris]

Have read Dr. Eades on this subject several times. Have read Adam Campbell on this subject (same study or very similar one) many times. Have read more general Men's Health on this subject several times. And have never come away wanting to cut back on my red meat consumption. Or my bacon consumption.

Here's my annecdotal experience that might be interesting. I am friends with a guy who is the head of Colorectal surgery at a very prominent medical school (think top 5, nation wide). Pretty good friends. Been to his house on several occasions. My friend, who has seen pretty much everything there is to see in people's colons and rectums (this might explain his large garden with an extensive orchid collection at the house), eats a good deal of red meat. And serves his guests same (he does provide vegetarian options, because he's sensitive to his guests). If you were a fairly noted colorectal guy, AND you had seen the worst of colorectal dysfunction and cancer, AND you were prominent in the university's interdisciplinary ethics groups (as in founder and top guy), would you serve guests something that you believed, with a full understanding of the evidence, would bring them into your professional sphere? Knowing this guy as I know him, I KNOW he wouldn't serve hot dogs if he thought it would bring his guests to any harm, much less colorectal cancer.

Last thing: they looked at meat consumption. They didn't look for other dietary issues, like low carb consumption with high protein. If they had, they might've published something different. They might not have had their NIH grant renewed, and they might not have gotten through peer review very easily. You never have to wonder why people don't ask the questions whose answers will not bring good things to them.

[Fabian]

I hate to be totally unscientific here in my response, but these studies really get my back up. I do think that processed food (meat or not) by current processing standards are a ticking timebomb, but lately you cannot pick up a newspaper without reading that something is causing cancer!! Cancer these days seems to me to be so random; we all know someone totally healthy, non smoker, healthy weight, no bad habits and they get cancer. it happens all of the time. I think that by sticking to protein power and being CAREFUL about the origin of our foods (buying organic or at least kindly and naturally reared where you can) you eliminate a lot of this.

In the Uk my father won awards back in the 1970's for an 'innovative' (actually simple and perfectly logical!!) farming method which meant that he did not feed herbivore animals omniverous foods, wich was deemed even back then to be better for health and a 'great idea!!'. The rule is very simple to my mind; animals (Red or white meat, even fish!) that have been farmed in conditions and fed foods that they are not actually meant to eat or cannot process is BOUND to pass problems up the food chain (BSE, CJD, Campilobacter etc etc) and this may be where they got there results from? Substandard produce? For example, here in wales they have started to ban processed food from schools and the results in primary school children concentration and attendance has been much better, so there has to be something in the cocktail of antibiotics, pesticides, preservatives that causes probably not only cancer but many other ills, even social ones. This study should not encourage you to 'avoid red meat' but be CONCIOUS of the origin of your meat and the conditions, foodstuffs and medicines these animals are given.

Anyway, I'll get down off my soap box now, rant over.

Happy Xmas!

[simple33332003]

Red meats and Cancer.

In my opinion this make me think of the title of Taubes article was it titled "What if its was a big fat lie".

What if it is a big fat lie?

I don't have any research or links to any sources to support anything of my opinions but I think I read somewhere that cancer cells consume glucose to grow? and normal cells use oxygen or something?

I think I will eat my red meat and bacon and saturated fats and butter. I feel in the long term it makes this low carb way of eating enjoyable and sustainable and maintainable.

Just because someone says something or believes in something it does not make it "True"

[simple33332003]

Reading other responses to this thread I tend to agree that red meat may not be the culprit.

The problem may be in the hormones, chemicals, pesticides and things that are added to food or used to produce food today that may contribute to cancer.

However, red meat would not be the only food that has these chemicals and additives in them. I can't think of anything that doesn't have these chemicals at all. Vegetables, fruit, nuts all healthy foods but all can have chemicals added in the production process.

So what can one do? practically speaking not sure. maybe buy organic or something. but practically speaking I think there is not much a consumer can do. maybe I am just pessimistic.