Red meat increases chance of bowel cancer

[tickletussler]

Ok, tonight's news on an Australian TV channel provided conclusive findings that there is a direct link between eating red meat and bowel cancer, a study printed in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute

This was a 5-year study on half a million Europeans, where eating 160g (5-6oz) of red meat daily increased the risk of bowel cancer by 30-40%.

The news said that eating fish counteracted some of the effects of the red meat, and the red meat should be limited to 2-3 times weekly.

I tend to eat meat every 2nd day - alternating with fish, esp omega-rich fish like salmon, tuna and trout. But what about those of us who are not fond of fish, and have constipation problems during Atkins? Sure we take fibre supplements and get it through some fruits and veggies, but this isn't enough
The news also commented that those on low-carb diets are also at risk if we do not eat enough fibre, as this aggravates the condition of bowel cancer.

Ok, now I need to go and find the full details of the study on the internet.

But now what? What do all of you think about this?

[Starmaker]

Chomping on her hamburger she looks up...HUH?

[sadie147]

I eat way more whole grains and fibre (about 20 - 25g's a day) than i ever did before this woe. I never ate whole grain anything..i was was a white wonder bread girl. And the veggies I eat now (never did before) are full of fibre as well.

I eat red meat..but in moderation. I believe this is a very health WOE if done properly. It is not all about bacon and beef and induction only.


Once you have gone thru the rungs and if done properly it's a very healthy and balanced diet IMO.

Far healthier than i ever ate in the past.


I went from eating a diet of entirely made up of processed foods, trans fats, and very little/no veggies, grains etc, to one almost entirely of whole foods and high fibre and veggies. I'm sorry but no study can tell me that i was better off before. (btw i ate just as much red meat, possibly more back then).

I'm one of those ppl that is very wary of all these 'studies'. now adays you can't eat anything that doesn't cause something.

[G-Mom]

I have heard that charred meat causes colon cancer, since the charring has a carcinogen in it, but I wouldn't be so sure about red meat itself.

I would need to take a look at the study. These kind of studies need to be really controlled (just look at all the different kinds of food we eat). I would need to see exactly how they determined that red meat has a direct link to cancer.

[ttdriver]

I agree with Sadie.

I have always loved my protein, be it from red meat or otherwise. Only now, I don't eat it with starch and sugar ... and its SUGAR that feeds cancer cells, not protein.

Now I eat healthy vegetables, fruits and whole grains along with my red meat. How much healthier could it be?

Betty

[not2late]

Originally Posted by tickletussler

Ok, tonight's news on an Australian TV channel provided conclusive findings that there is a direct link between eating red meat and bowel cancer, a study printed in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute

This was a 5-year study on half a million Europeans, where eating 160g (5-6oz) of red meat daily increased the risk of bowel cancer by 30-40%.

The news said that eating fish counteracted some of the effects of the red meat, and the red meat should be limited to 2-3 times weekly.

I tend to eat meat every 2nd day - alternating with fish, esp omega-rich fish like salmon, tuna and trout. But what about those of us who are not fond of fish, and have constipation problems during Atkins? Sure we take fibre supplements and get it through some fruits and veggies, but this isn't enough
The news also commented that those on low-carb diets are also at risk if we do not eat enough fibre, as this aggravates the condition of bowel cancer.

Ok, now I need to go and find the full details of the study on the internet.

But now what? What do all of you think about this?

Tickle, did the study point out that due to the pollution in the oceans and rivers, many fish are contaminated with mercury, arsenic and other chemicals that are harmful to humans if eaten in excess? Here in the states, they've put limits on the amount of fish, like tuna, one can eat weekly due to that contamination....

As for fiber and cancer, if you are eating all your veggies on Atkins, you will be getting the fiber you need. That's why I never recommend people to skip rung 1 of OWL---too much good fiber and nutrients in those OWL foods to skip over. Moreover once you move to the nuts, fruit, legumes and starchier veggie rungs of OWL, your fiber intake increases (and you might not need to take those fiber supplements anymore).

[FightingTheFight]

People have been eating red meat long before cancer even came around. As matter of fact, Cancer really didn't show up intill the turn of the century. Around the same time the amount of sugar people were eating skyrocketed. Odd isn't it? ensive

Heres something else that got me thinking the other day. The average american eats 150lbs of sugar a year! ..now here is the worse part. I got a feeling that most of the people on this board do not eat that much, but the average is still there...so people must be making up for our lack of eating it.

Theres people out there eating two-three times moer sugar than the average!! :yikes

[theredhead]

I keep reading over and over again about how so many of these studies are inherently flawed in that the subjects are also eating large amounts of sugars and starches. I sincerely believe that red meat is no threat in the absence of sugar and high carb crap. Just my opinion.

[tickletussler]

I have found some links of the news story for all of you

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4088824.stm
http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_informa...eatcancer.html
http://www.asco.org/ac/1,1003,_12-00..._20-001,00.asp
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,...1a7144,00.html

Here's the actual study as found in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute
http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jnci;97/12/906

The last link may be most useful to those of you who are questioning the parameters of the study. It was released 15 June 2005

[not2late]

I agree with them about the processed meats---too many preservatives and additives in them, imo.

But here's an interesting thing about the fish intake.

High fish intake may be associated with a decreased risk, but the existing evidence is less convincing

So they aren't really sure if eating fish is relatively better.

In fact, eating poultry wasn't associated with colorectal cancer according to the researchers.

Colorectal cancer risk was positively associated with intake of red and processed meat (highest [>160 g/day] versus lowest [<20 g/day] intake, HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.88; Ptrend = .03) and inversely associated with intake of fish (>80 g/day versus <10 g/day, HR = 0.69, 95 % CI = 0.54 to 0.88; Ptrend<.001), but was not related to poultry intake.

Nonetheless, it is an interesting study and I would love to see more on it. Particularly if they break down the "red meat" into animal categories. For example do beef eaters have a higher risk than pork or lamb eaters?