Red Meat NO GOOD, Veggies no protection.... NOW WHAT?



S

SWT

Guest
Red Meat Consumption Linked To Colon Cancer Risk
January 11, 2005

Two new published studies examining diet and cancer have linked high
red meat consumption to an increased colorectal cancer risk, while
also casting some doubt on the claim that eating fruits and vegetables
can help prevent the development of breast cancer.

One study found that consuming large amounts of red meat or processed
meat raised the risk of developing colon cancer by as much as 50
percent. The study included close to 149,000 adults aged 50 to 74.
Study participants completed questionnaires about their eating habits.

The researchers found that those who ate the most red meat were
between 30 and 40 percent more likely to develop colon cancer compared
with those who consumed the least. The team also found a 50 percent
increased risk of colon cancer among those who ate the most processed
meats.

"High" red meat consumption was defined for men as 3 or more ounces
per day. For women, the researchers said "high" consumption was
defined as 2 or more ounces per day.

On the good side, the researchers report eating fish and chicken can
decrease the risk of developing colon cancer.

The study, led by the American Cancer Society, appears in Journal of
the American Medical Association.

The fruit and vegetable study, also published in the same journal
included more than 285,000 European woman. It found that fruit and
vegetable consumption did not protect against developing breast
cancer.

The findings surprised many health professionals as several previous
studies have linked fruit and vegetable consumption with a decreased
risk of developing breast cancer.
 
"SWT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Red Meat Consumption Linked To Colon Cancer Risk
> January 11, 2005
>
> Two new published studies examining diet and cancer have linked high
> red meat consumption to an increased colorectal cancer risk, while
> also casting some doubt on the claim that eating fruits and vegetables
> can help prevent the development of breast cancer.
>
> One study found that consuming large amounts of red meat or processed
> meat raised the risk of developing colon cancer by as much as 50
> percent. The study included close to 149,000 adults aged 50 to 74.
> Study participants completed questionnaires about their eating habits.
>
> The researchers found that those who ate the most red meat were
> between 30 and 40 percent more likely to develop colon cancer compared
> with those who consumed the least. The team also found a 50 percent
> increased risk of colon cancer among those who ate the most processed
> meats.
>
> "High" red meat consumption was defined for men as 3 or more ounces
> per day. For women, the researchers said "high" consumption was
> defined as 2 or more ounces per day.
>
> On the good side, the researchers report eating fish and chicken can
> decrease the risk of developing colon cancer.
>
> The study, led by the American Cancer Society, appears in Journal of
> the American Medical Association.
>
> The fruit and vegetable study, also published in the same journal
> included more than 285,000 European woman. It found that fruit and
> vegetable consumption did not protect against developing breast
> cancer.
>
> The findings surprised many health professionals as several previous
> studies have linked fruit and vegetable consumption with a decreased
> risk of developing breast cancer.

I think 1 of the risk factors in cancer is oxygen supply and that eating
fatty food like red meat will somewhat impare the blood's ability to carry
oxygen, hence a risk factor in cancer. With women and breast cancer, there
may be problems with tight bras and synthetic materials. Again, an oxygen
issue. I'm not saying lack of oxygen causes cancer, but it is a factor that
has been shown to exist.
 
The answer to your subject line is in your post, as we have been taught for
decades, easy on the red meat, more fish and chicken balanced with a variety
of fruits and vegetables, balance, balance, balance..

It's not brain surgery.


"SWT" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
> Red Meat Consumption Linked To Colon Cancer Risk
> January 11, 2005
>
> Two new published studies examining diet and cancer have linked high
> red meat consumption to an increased colorectal cancer risk, while
> also casting some doubt on the claim that eating fruits and vegetables
> can help prevent the development of breast cancer.
>
> One study found that consuming large amounts of red meat or processed
> meat raised the risk of developing colon cancer by as much as 50
> percent. The study included close to 149,000 adults aged 50 to 74.
> Study participants completed questionnaires about their eating habits.
>
> The researchers found that those who ate the most red meat were
> between 30 and 40 percent more likely to develop colon cancer compared
> with those who consumed the least. The team also found a 50 percent
> increased risk of colon cancer among those who ate the most processed
> meats.
>
> "High" red meat consumption was defined for men as 3 or more ounces
> per day. For women, the researchers said "high" consumption was
> defined as 2 or more ounces per day.
>
> On the good side, the researchers report eating fish and chicken can
> decrease the risk of developing colon cancer.
>
> The study, led by the American Cancer Society, appears in Journal of
> the American Medical Association.
>
> The fruit and vegetable study, also published in the same journal
> included more than 285,000 European woman. It found that fruit and
> vegetable consumption did not protect against developing breast
> cancer.
>
> The findings surprised many health professionals as several previous
> studies have linked fruit and vegetable consumption with a decreased
> risk of developing breast cancer.
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> The answer to your subject line is in your post, as we have been taught for
> decades, easy on the red meat, more fish and chicken balanced with a variety
> of fruits and vegetables, balance, balance, balance..
>
> It's not brain surgery.

Theories of balance of moderation only delay or reduce harm they do not
remove harm. I can apply the same principle to heroin use. Use less
heroin and more crack, or pot to be a bit healthier and happier. The
notion of moderation does not remove the risk of X that is moderated
with Y, or Z.
 
The fruit and vegetable study, also published in the same journal
included more than 285,000 European woman. It found that fruit and
vegetable consumption did not protect against developing breast
cancer.


"We can't even eat enough food to get the antioxidants we need .. "

The question would / should be .. the study of European women did NOT
address whether or not they are STILL eating .. meat ..? .. high
absorption of .. iron .. at ALL times of iron status .. whether we need
the iron or not .. it is .. absorbed .. at .. a .. high .. rate .. /
heme iron !!

Flawed ..

Who loves ya.
Tom

Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com
Man Is A Herbivore!
http://pages.ivillage.com/ironjustice/manisaherbivore
DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://pages.ivillage.com/ironjustice/deadpeoplewalking
 
"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > The answer to your subject line is in your post, as we have been taught
for
> > decades, easy on the red meat, more fish and chicken balanced with a
variety
> > of fruits and vegetables, balance, balance, balance..
> >
> > It's not brain surgery.
>
> Theories of balance of moderation only delay or reduce harm they do not
> remove harm.

Actually they do.A small amount of red wine is said to be beneficial.

> I can apply the same principle to heroin use. Use less
> heroin and more crack, or pot to be a bit healthier and happier. The
> notion of moderation does not remove the risk of X that is moderated
> with Y, or Z.

Pot is still smoke, so the increased risk of associated lung disease is
still present, but if used carefully it may reduce the incidence of stress
and hypertension. The highly addictive nature of heroin makes this a less
likely scenario. Living in a city may increase your risk of lung cancer from
pollution but it may benefit you in other ways that make it worthwhile.
 
Before getting too worried, one way or the other, find out what was
classified as "fruit and vegetables." I remember a study that
classified "fruit drink" as a "fruit and vegetable." Also, some fruits
are very high in antioxidants whereas other are not. My guess is that
this is the reason, that is, too many "fruit and vegetables" people
like these days are low in antioxidants. Eat berries, broccoli
florets, and the other goods ones.
 
If anything, oxygen is part of the problem. Oxidative stress, in the
form of lipid peroxidation, is the key. See Whelan's article from
1997, for example. Iron is more likely to account for the difference
between chicken and beef, for example. Oxygen, iron, and unsaturated
fatty acids are a killer combination. The oxygen will be there, but
you can limit the iron and unsaturated fatty acids by changing your
diet.
 
Dorian West wrote:
> I think 1 of the risk factors in cancer is oxygen supply

Any proof?

> and that eating fatty food like red meat

"Fatty foods" defined as...? I say that because nuts are fattier than
red meat.

> will somewhat impare the blood's ability to carry
> oxygen,

You're apparently ignorant of how the body works, not to mention how
oxygen can affect it (hint: free radicals and oxidation).

> hence a risk factor in cancer. With women and breast cancer, there
> may be problems with tight bras and synthetic materials.

Any proof of this?

> Again, an oxygen issue.

Right now, you have a proof issue.

> I'm not saying lack of oxygen causes cancer,

You shouldn't, unless you want other gullible idiots to follow your lead
and start peddling pro-oxidant formulas to counteract the people
peddling anti-oxidant formulas.

> but it is a factor that has been shown to exist.

*Where* has it been shown to exist?
 
These are aggregated statistical studies. They do nothing to explain
the biology of what happens when we eat particular foods, based on our
bio-individuality.

They are also relatively uncontrolled, as we don't know exactly which
meats and which vegetables were eaten, what else was eaten; whether or
not the food was contaminated with pesticides, herbicides and
fungicides; whether the dairy had rBGH in it, etc, etc, etc.

respectfully, I will not be changing my eating style, currently based
on which foods are shown to be compatible to my blood/immune/hormonal
system, based on this study.

Steve

>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:35:56 -0000, "Dorian West" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>"SWT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> Red Meat Consumption Linked To Colon Cancer Risk
>> January 11, 2005
>>
>> Two new published studies examining diet and cancer have linked high
>> red meat consumption to an increased colorectal cancer risk, while
>> also casting some doubt on the claim that eating fruits and vegetables
>> can help prevent the development of breast cancer.
>>
>snip
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The answer to your subject line is in your post, as we have been taught
> for
> > > decades, easy on the red meat, more fish and chicken balanced with a
> variety
> > > of fruits and vegetables, balance, balance, balance..
> > >
> > > It's not brain surgery.
> >
> > Theories of balance of moderation only delay or reduce harm they do not
> > remove harm.
>
> Actually they do.A small amount of red wine is said to be beneficial.

You are unwilling to provide a study and defend the research and it's
conclusions. If you aren't willing to defend your own thinking -- I
decline.

> > I can apply the same principle to heroin use. Use less
> > heroin and more crack, or pot to be a bit healthier and happier. The
> > notion of moderation does not remove the risk of X that is moderated
> > with Y, or Z.
>
> Pot is still smoke, so the increased risk of associated lung disease is
> still present, but if used carefully it may reduce the incidence of stress
> and hypertension. The highly addictive nature of heroin makes this a less
> likely scenario. Living in a city may increase your risk of lung cancer from
> pollution but it may benefit you in other ways that make it worthwhile.

The harm still exists. It's a question of slowing down the death/dying
process.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Dorian West <[email protected]> wrote:
>"SWT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Red Meat Consumption Linked To Colon Cancer Risk
>> January 11, 2005
>>
>> Two new published studies examining diet and cancer have linked high
>> red meat consumption to an increased colorectal cancer risk, while
>> also casting some doubt on the claim that eating fruits and vegetables
>> can help prevent the development of breast cancer.
>>
>> One study found that consuming large amounts of red meat or processed
>> meat raised the risk of developing colon cancer by as much as 50
>> percent. The study included close to 149,000 adults aged 50 to 74.
>> Study participants completed questionnaires about their eating habits.
>>
>> The researchers found that those who ate the most red meat were
>> between 30 and 40 percent more likely to develop colon cancer compared
>> with those who consumed the least. The team also found a 50 percent
>> increased risk of colon cancer among those who ate the most processed
>> meats.
>>
>> "High" red meat consumption was defined for men as 3 or more ounces
>> per day. For women, the researchers said "high" consumption was
>> defined as 2 or more ounces per day.
>>
>> On the good side, the researchers report eating fish and chicken can
>> decrease the risk of developing colon cancer.
>>
>> The study, led by the American Cancer Society, appears in Journal of
>> the American Medical Association.
>>
>> The fruit and vegetable study, also published in the same journal
>> included more than 285,000 European woman. It found that fruit and
>> vegetable consumption did not protect against developing breast
>> cancer.
>>
>> The findings surprised many health professionals as several previous
>> studies have linked fruit and vegetable consumption with a decreased
>> risk of developing breast cancer.
>
>I think 1 of the risk factors in cancer is oxygen supply and that eating
>fatty food like red meat will somewhat impare the blood's ability to carry
>oxygen, hence a risk factor in cancer. With women and breast cancer, there
>may be problems with tight bras and synthetic materials. Again, an oxygen
>issue. I'm not saying lack of oxygen causes cancer, but it is a factor that
>has been shown to exist.

I'm afraid that you are mistaken. Eating red meet does not deplete
the blood's ability to carry oxygen; indeed, the iron in meat is used
to make more red blood cells, which carry oxygen.

Your ideas about tight clothing are also mistaken; none of them affect
the ability of the blood to carry oxygen or the ability of the wearer
to breathe (unless you're talking about those old whalebone corsets).

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
> "Dutch" <[email protected]> wrote:

[..]

>> > > The answer to your subject line is in your post, as we have been
>> > > taught
>> for
>> > > decades, easy on the red meat, more fish and chicken balanced with a
>> variety
>> > > of fruits and vegetables, balance, balance, balance..
>> > >
>> > > It's not brain surgery.
>> >
>> > Theories of balance of moderation only delay or reduce harm they do not
>> > remove harm.
>>
>> Actually they do.A small amount of red wine is said to be beneficial.
>
> You are unwilling to provide a study and defend the research and it's
> conclusions. If you aren't willing to defend your own thinking -- I
> decline.

Aren't getting a little sick of being shown to be wrong? For some reason
unknown to me you seem to be attracted to erroneous ideas.

>> > I can apply the same principle to heroin use. Use less
>> > heroin and more crack, or pot to be a bit healthier and happier. The
>> > notion of moderation does not remove the risk of X that is moderated
>> > with Y, or Z.
>>
>> Pot is still smoke, so the increased risk of associated lung disease is
>> still present, but if used carefully it may reduce the incidence of
>> stress
>> and hypertension. The highly addictive nature of heroin makes this a less
>> likely scenario. Living in a city may increase your risk of lung cancer
>> from
>> pollution but it may benefit you in other ways that make it worthwhile.
>
> The harm still exists. It's a question of slowing down the death/dying
> process.

Agreed, which is one reason I advocate abstinence from pot smoking.
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
> > "Dutch" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> > > The answer to your subject line is in your post, as we have been
> >> > > taught
> >> for
> >> > > decades, easy on the red meat, more fish and chicken balanced with a
> >> variety
> >> > > of fruits and vegetables, balance, balance, balance..
> >> > >
> >> > > It's not brain surgery.
> >> >
> >> > Theories of balance of moderation only delay or reduce harm they do not
> >> > remove harm.
> >>
> >> Actually they do.A small amount of red wine is said to be beneficial.
> >
> > You are unwilling to provide a study and defend the research and it's
> > conclusions. If you aren't willing to defend your own thinking -- I
> > decline.
>
> Aren't getting a little sick of being shown to be wrong? For some reason
> unknown to me you seem to be attracted to erroneous ideas.

Your ideas are merely common. That seems to suit you. I'm somewhat
different than you in this respect.

> >> > I can apply the same principle to heroin use. Use less
> >> > heroin and more crack, or pot to be a bit healthier and happier. The
> >> > notion of moderation does not remove the risk of X that is moderated
> >> > with Y, or Z.
> >>
> >> Pot is still smoke, so the increased risk of associated lung disease is
> >> still present, but if used carefully it may reduce the incidence of
> >> stress
> >> and hypertension. The highly addictive nature of heroin makes this a less
> >> likely scenario. Living in a city may increase your risk of lung cancer
> >> from
> >> pollution but it may benefit you in other ways that make it worthwhile.
> >
> > The harm still exists. It's a question of slowing down the death/dying
> > process.
>
> Agreed, which is one reason I advocate abstinence from pot smoking.

That is a contradiction. The 'legalization' of pot use is not being an
advocate for abstinence. To be consistent with you, i advocate for
abstinence from raping and killing, I think therefore, that I should
advocate for the legalization of raping and killing.
 
sTeve wrote:
> These are aggregated statistical studies. They do nothing to explain
> the biology of what happens when we eat particular foods, based on our
> bio-individuality.

Cut the psychobabble, Steve. These were sound studies.

> They are also relatively uncontrolled,

Relatively? lol

> as we don't know exactly which
> meats and which vegetables were eaten,

We do.
The new study, led by American Cancer Society researchers and
involving 148,610 men and women aged 63 on average, is among the
biggest. Participants recorded their meat intake in 1982 and
again in 1992-93. Those with a high meat intake were about 30 to
40 percent more likely to develop lower colon or rectal cancer
than those with a low intake.

One of the more interesting findings is that those with high consumption
of fish and poultry had a *significant decrease* in risk of colorectal
cancer. So not all meat is bad.

> what else was eaten; whether or
> not the food was contaminated with pesticides, herbicides and
> fungicides; whether the dairy had rBGH in it, etc, etc, etc.

There's enough monitoring of those agents to be able to eliminate those
as causes. That is, if they consume conventional produce since it's
monitored for pesticide residues. Organic produce isn't tested for
residues despite the amount of pesticides used in its production.
Pyrethrum, an *ORGANIC* pesticide, is listed as a human carcinogen by
the EPA. Other organic pesticides are equally nasty -- and linked to
Parkinson's and other diseases.

> respectfully,

Repectfully? haha!

> I will not be changing my eating style, currently based
> on which foods are shown to be compatible to my blood/immune/hormonal
> system, based on this study.

Shown to be compatible how -- through something that's not "relatively
uncontrolled" as you suggested these studies were?
 
"usual suspect" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> sTeve wrote:
<..>
> > what else was eaten; whether or
> > not the food was contaminated with pesticides, herbicides and
> > fungicides; whether the dairy had rBGH in it, etc, etc, etc.
>
> There's enough monitoring of those agents to be able to eliminate those
> as causes. That is, if they consume conventional produce since it's
> monitored for pesticide residues. Organic produce isn't tested for
> residues despite the amount of pesticides used in its production.

'Pesticide residues

Over 400 pesticides are permitted for use in the UK. The incidence and
levels of pesticide residues on foods are monitored annually. 28.6% of
all foods tested in 1999 were found to contain pesticide residues, and
48% of all fruit and vegetables tested (MAFF 2000). The levels found
are typically very low. Just 1.6% of all foods and 3% of fruit and
vegetables exceeded the MRL - maximum residue limit - in 1999.

Seven pesticides are permitted for restricted use in organic farming.
Organic produce is usually found to contain no pesticide residues. When
residues are present, they are typically of significantly lower incidence and
levels than those found in non-organic produce (MAFF 1999, Schüpbach
1986, Reinhardt & Wolf 1986), and result mostly from environmental
pollution from non-organic agriculture (Woese et al. 1997, Bitaud 2000).

'Rigorous safety assessments' are made of all pesticides and it is asserted
that these incidences and levels do not represent a threat to food safety
(FSA 2001). However no such 'rigorous safety assessment' has or can
be made of the infinite number of mixtures of compounds consumers are
typically exposed to. Individual samples contained up to seven different
pesticides in 1999. Synergies resulting in greatly increased toxicity of
pesticides and other agricultural compounds have been observed (Boyd
et al. 1990, Porter et al. 1993, Porter et al. 1999, Thiruchelvam et al. 2000).

Dietary exposure to pesticide residues has been linked to gastrointestinal
and neurological complaints (Ratner et al. 1983), breast milk contamination
(Aubert 1975) and some sperm quality parameters (Juhler et al. 1999,
Abell et al. 1994, Jensen et al. 1996). The British Medical Association
urges a precautionary approach "because the data on risk to human health
from exposure to pesticides are incomplete" (BMA 1992).
...'
http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/library/Assessing organic food quality.pdf

> Pyrethrum, an *ORGANIC* pesticide, is listed as a human carcinogen by
> the EPA. Other organic pesticides are equally nasty -- and linked to
> Parkinson's and other diseases.

'Derived from the painted daisy, Chrysanthemum cinerariifolium,
pyrethrins are considered one of the most important natural insecticides.
When you must use a broad spectrum insecticide in the vegetable garden
or lose the crop, this is one of the best choices. Of low toxicity to mammals,
they kill insects quickly. In sunlight they break down and are non-toxic
within a day or less. For best results apply it in the late afternoon or evening.
Use pyrethrins for the hard-to-kill pests such as beetles, squash bugs, and
tarnished plant bugs.'
http://www.iserv.net/~wmize/insctd.htm

'While pyrethroids are a synthetic version of an extract from the
chrysanthemum, they were chemically designed to be more toxic
with longer breakdown times, and are often formulated with synergists,
increasing potency and compromising the human body's ability to
detoxify the pesticide.'
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pesticides/factsheets/Synthetic Pyrethroids.pdf
 
>A small amount of red wine is said to be beneficial.

Dr. Mercola pointed out the flaw in that study.

The study -seemed- to show that people who consumed alcohol moderately
were healthier than people who abstained totally from alcohol.

The flaw in that study was that the people who used to be drunks and
wrecked their health on alcohol and then swore off alcohol were counted
as abstainers.
 
>A small amount of red wine is said to be beneficial.

Dr. Mercola pointed out the flaw in that study.

The study -seemed- to show that people who consumed alcohol moderately
were healthier than people who abstained totally from alcohol.

The flaw in that study was that the people who used to be drunks and
wrecked their health on alcohol and then swore off alcohol were counted
as abstainers.
 
peril wrote:
> <..>
>
>>>what else was eaten; whether or
>>>not the food was contaminated with pesticides, herbicides and
>>>fungicides; whether the dairy had rBGH in it, etc, etc, etc.
>>
>>There's enough monitoring of those agents to be able to eliminate those
>>as causes. That is, if they consume conventional produce since it's
>>monitored for pesticide residues. Organic produce isn't tested for
>>residues despite the amount of pesticides used in its production.

IN THE *UNITED STATES*.

<snip of UK-related gibberish>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
usual suspect <[email protected]> wrote:

> peril wrote:
> > <..>
> >
> >>>what else was eaten; whether or
> >>>not the food was contaminated with pesticides, herbicides and
> >>>fungicides; whether the dairy had rBGH in it, etc, etc, etc.
> >>
> >>There's enough monitoring of those agents to be able to eliminate those
> >>as causes. That is, if they consume conventional produce since it's
> >>monitored for pesticide residues. Organic produce isn't tested for
> >>residues despite the amount of pesticides used in its production.
>
> IN THE *UNITED STATES*.
>
> <snip of UK-related gibberish>

America rocks!

*holds hand to chest and looks for flag waving in the wind*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back