Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 3:57 pm
Ironman wrote:I've seen other studies that show that's not the case.
Which studies have you seen that recommend unlimited amounts of red meat?
Ironman wrote: So I kind of look at it like the little boy who cried wolf except for in cases where there is a very strong link like tobacco use.
Millions of people smoke but don't develop lung cancer - if you raise the burden of proof high enough, you don't have to believe anything.
BTW, heme iron seems to be a two-edged sword:
The higher colon cancer risk from red meat may be due to its levels of the heme form of iron. Heme iron is only found in animal foods, and the amount in beef is about twice that in chicken and fish. It has a different chemical form than the iron in plant foods and supplements. Heme iron seems to damage the lining of the colon and cause abnormal cell growth. One study shows that increasing red meat leads to more NOCs in the colon. Red meat’s heme iron produces more NOCs than iron from plant foods.
Like some philosopher once said, moderation in all things is a virtue.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 5:07 am
If I remember right, one study was published in Men's Health. I'll look around for them later. While it is true lots of people smoke without getting cancer, I am sure even the study you linked to does not show as strong of a link as smoking studies.
In fact the one you linked said this:
Not all studies support a link between red meat and colon cancer, but what scientists call the “preponderance,” meaning a convincing majority, do. A study of more than 148,000 Americans released earlier this year tracked people for 9 to 19 years. Those who ate the most red and processed meats faced a 13 to 15 percent increase in the risk of colon cancer.
Notice processed meats are lumped in there. Like I was saying it could be certain additives rather then meat. Also 13 to 15% is much less then the increased cancer risk of smoking. I'm sure it's not even close. So finding those studies unconvincing does not mean I must feel the same about tobacco.
I'll dig up more info later.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 9:42 am
I've had this debate with my wife. She was about to swear off beef for good. She always does this just after I fill up the freezer. There are clear health concerns with processed meats and with red meat cooked at high temeratures (BBQ). There does not seem to be a link with red meat in general, especially with organic grass fed beef. (Who knows what's in the other kind). The moderation thing is important here. The human body is built for variety. Mixing up beef with poultry, pork, fish, etc would smooth out the risk. Eating too much of anything is risky. There are always unknown ingrediants that if consumed constantly may cause a problem someday. Just don't make red meat, or anthing else, the only thing in your diet. I don't think you need to make buffalo and ostrich meat staples in your diet.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:24 pm
yea for sure. Ironman does not live on beef alone. I haven't found a critter yet that wasn't mighty good prepared the right way. I'm sure there are some though, but not many.
My Dad was a big BBQ fan and he did have colon cancer. He also used to smoke though too. I used to say, "Dad, You know you put the cigarette in your mouth right?" He still eats plenty of BBQ, and no cancer for 10 years so far. It could be a combo kind of thing like, smoking + BBQ + additives + not enough fiber + genetics + being a couple years older then TimD.... hehe :)
All I know is thanks to him I have to visit the butt doctor 10 years early! Nice going Dad! lol :)
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 6:42 pm
If meat is so good for you...as many in this country are starting to claim...how come every doctor and medical professional still recommend more fruits, veggies and whole grains? As for your theory that everything has been shown to cause cancer...find a study where fruit, veggies, whole grains, or nuts and legumes have been shown to cause cancer and you'll have a miracle. Try to find a study where meat has been a factor in cancer...and you'll probably wind up with about 100,000. In fact...in just about every study with cancer...plant sources have been shown to reduce the risk of cancer. Yea, I guess my logic is totally flawed. That's why we all grew up hearing a steak a day keeps the doctor away.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 7:49 pm
Actually the anti-meat thing is tied to the anti-fat fad which is based off bogus research. Doctors recommend more fruit and veg because people don't eat much. The whole grains thing is in part to get people off white flour, but it was also based off the previous food pyramid where people thought you had to eat all this bready stuff.
When I say everything, I actually just mean a lot of things. Additives in fruit veg products have been suspected, but not the food itself because there is no motivation to slant the research that way. Food does not cause cancer. Take coffee, first it causes cancer then it prevents it. It's junk science at it's best. Take a look at the human digestive system and then compare it to that of a dog or other carnivore. They are a lot alike. Then compare it to an omnivore like a gorilla, and you will see some big differences. Then compare it to herbivores like sheep and cows and it's a night and day difference. That should tell you something right there. I do agree that plant sources can reduce cancer risk though, it's because we need fiber.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 8:39 pm
Here is the first one I found. It says fruits and veggies don't help and makes no distinction between any of the red meats, so this doe not show weather it is the meat or an additive. It also says smoking, obesity and inactivity are much more strongly linked then high meat consumption.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/ ... 6228.shtml
Here is another where the accuracy is questioned due to people not estimating portion size right, not remembering everything and more of the meat eaters also smoked.
Here is another article with no distinction between meat and additives.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/conte ... Cancer.asp
It appears all the articles are about a couple studies. all of which are inconclusive. They fail to separate the digestion of meat from other factors. This is very poor science, bordering on junk and used as sensationalism.
In addition just because the articles found fruit and veg didn't help, I still say fiber is important for digestion, as there are other more scientific studies which prove that.
We should also keep in mind relation does not prove causation. For example I can prove that there is an inverse relationship in the number of pirates and global temperatures. Does this prove the decline in pirates causes global warming? Bodybuilders always seem to call everyone "bro". Does that mean weight training and high protein intake causes you to call people bro?
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 9:07 pm
Here is an article form 2003 about bogus cancer research.
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/animal ... ancer.html
Here is one about the fat/cholesterol myth and the junk science it's based on
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/choles ... yth_1.html
This is about the salt/sodium myth and the junk science it is based on.
http://www.health-report.co.uk/sodium_c ... yths1.html
Here is all about vegetarianism.
Take a look at this. It is only hearsay, but It's probably true
Here is the man/dog/sheep digestive tract comparison.
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carn_h ... rison.html
This bit is pretty good too with a diagram of a human and gorilla.
Here is another doctor with a book on cholesterol myths. Take note of the reviews by other PHD's and MD's.
A good article, although it does appear on a questionable website.
Here is more vegetarian stuff
high fat low carb and alxheimers
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 072307.htm
more fat nonesense
http://people.bu.edu/sobieraj/nutrition ... 30_01.html
Here is one about processed carbs causing breast cancer. Much stronger then the meat studies, but it still relies on memory, which is a flaw. If you put the 2 together though, it makes a strong case against processed food in general.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/ ... 4382.shtml
Well that's all the time I have to play on the internet. I need to go to the gym now.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 9:18 pm
One more thing. Here is something about propaganda techniques. From PETA to Scientology, you'll get this thrown at you.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... techniques
Here is Nazi style propaganda techniques compared to anti-gun. Just to show how it's done.
This is all about Nazi propaganda techniques. If you pay attention you will notice how certain groups use it today. That is because it is among the most effective forms of mind control ever devised.
History..... learn it or repeat it....
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 10:36 pm
Ironman wrote:Take a look at the human digestive system and then compare it to that of a dog or other carnivore. They are a lot alike. Then compare it to an omnivore like a gorilla, and you will see some big differences.
The digestive tract of a dog is three times the length of its body. The digestive tract of a human is 12 times the length of our bodies. Human beings are not carnivores. The human genome and gorilla genome has better than 90% compatibility. The human genome and chimpanzee genome has 98.4% compatibility. I don't have the genome matching for humans and dogs, but dogs are from a different mammalian order (carnivora
) than humans (primates
). Based on this chart
, humans are more closely related to rodents than dogs.
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 12:55 am
I'm not talking genome. I'm talking strictly about the digestive system. Sure the digestive system is not identical, but is a lot closer then to herbivores.
Dogs and people both have incisors canines and ridge molars. They both have a vertical motion jaw for tearing and crushing. Stomach capacity and empty time and other functions are similar when comparing to a dog of the same size anyway. Colon and gallbladder function are similar, as is digestive activity. Both are intermittent feeders rather then continuous like herbivores.
Also the ratio of the human digestive tract is 5 to 6, not 12.
Your small intestine is by far the longest part and is only twenty some odd feet long. Add mouth to mid abdomen to that, plus your colon which goes from the end of the small intestine and wraps up and around and back down to the rectum. Plus a couple feet for the bendy bits on either end of the stomach and that's about it. The dog's is just a little shorter, about 5 time longer then it's body. It's small intestine ratio is just a little smaller then ours as well. However the ratio of the small intestine to the rest of the digestive tract in both a human and dog are just about identical.
Now lets take a sheep for example, it has a digestive tract more then 25 time the length of it's body. It has a rotary jaw with a grinding motion. No canines, more then double our stomach capacity and it never empties. They are also a continuous feeder. They have enzymes that can digest the cell walls of plants and we do not.
I am unable to find good details about the gorilla digestive system, but I can tell you that it is much larger then a humans because they are nearly herbivorous apart from insects and such. Just look at this gorilla, it is not obese, that it's natural anatomy.
http://www.mikekaplan.com/pictures/view ... &UID=10167
In addition I have another link the vegetarians should click.