• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Cancer Study Implicates Obesity, Red Meat

Mike

Well-known member
Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 - 04:22 PM

You could avoid cancer by the decisions you make. That's according to what researchers are calling a "landmark study." It says body fat is strongly linked to six types of cancer and that it is a stronger factor than family history. Researchers say even small amounts of excess body fat, especially at the waist, increase risk of colon, prostate and breast cancer and others. Avoiding weight gain is the study's first recommendation for avoiding the disease. That means drastically limiting foods high in sugar and fat. It suggests limiting red meat to an ounce and a half a day and says there is no safe amount of processed meats like bacon, ham and lunch meat.

To look at the full report from the american institute of cancer research, click here http://www.dietandcancerreport.org
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
It suggests limiting red meat to an ounce and a half a day

That's BS and they know it. There is long standing evidence that contradicts this...it's PC for them to be veggie and quasi-animal rights! :mad:
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Lets see, you take a bunch of steers. Put them in a section of pipe fenced land where you can manage a couple of hundred thousand of them. To keep them healthy (or at least "not sick") make sure they have their daily dose of broad spectrum antibiotics. To keep them fit (they can't really move in that environment) and to help them gain weight, put them on a steroid enhanced diet. To make it cost effective put them on a feed processed from genetically modified soy, corn, and grain by-products. When they reach optimum weight walk them down death row and process them, adrenaline and all. After all the meat has been processed, complete with 20% unidentified (and unidentifiable) solution added to enhance color and shelf life, wrap it in CO2 filled tubs for shipping to the supermarket distribution center, then on to the supermarket.

Now feed this sh!t to people and claim red meat causes cancer.
 

TimH

Well-known member
This kind of crap beats the hell out of placing an export tax on beef(like they do in South America,check it out) to keep domestic food prices down. THINK PEOPLE.
It is just "accidents"(inadvertant bones and tendons) that keep disrupting beef trade with the Asian market..........OK...... :roll: :roll:
 

hillsdown

Well-known member
Protein does not make you thick around the belly........CARBS do.

It seems to me the study should have been more directed to what the people were eating and drinking along side of their "meat" dishes.
 

Ben H

Well-known member
Unfortunately I have to admit there is some risk from eating too much Red Meat. I can't remember the whole reason but it has something to do with the iron causing free radicals. We talked about this in my Livestock and The Enviroment class back in school. But it was also mentioned that it's not really an issue with Women because they loose a fair amount of blood every month, the iron replaces what is lost. It was also mentioned that this can be somewhat countered by having plenty of fiber in the diet to clean your colon out.
It also doesn't take into account CLA being a cancer fighting fatty acid. It is low in conventional beef, but higher in other raising methods. Yes its higher in grass fed, but there is research being done to find out what to feed animals to increase it, is flax seed oil one of them? Dale Bauman, the guy who invented rBST at Cornell, is doing the research at Cornell on CLA as we speak.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Lets see, you take a bunch of steers. Put them in a section of pipe fenced land where you can manage a couple of hundred thousand of them. To keep them healthy (or at least "not sick") make sure they have their daily dose of broad spectrum antibiotics. To keep them fit (they can't really move in that environment) and to help them gain weight, put them on a steroid enhanced diet. To make it cost effective put them on a feed processed from genetically modified soy, corn, and grain by-products. When they reach optimum weight walk them down death row and process them, adrenaline and all. After all the meat has been processed, complete with 20% unidentified (and unidentifiable) solution added to enhance color and shelf life, wrap it in CO2 filled tubs for shipping to the supermarket distribution center, then on to the supermarket.

Now feed this sh!t to people and claim red meat causes cancer.

I think you hit it right on, Goodpasture.

People need to eat real red meat grown as naturally as possible. Our attempts to imitate nature often don't measure up to the original.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Lets see, you take a bunch of steers. Put them in a section of pipe fenced land where you can manage a couple of hundred thousand of them. To keep them healthy (or at least "not sick") make sure they have their daily dose of broad spectrum antibiotics. To keep them fit (they can't really move in that environment) and to help them gain weight, put them on a steroid enhanced diet. To make it cost effective put them on a feed processed from genetically modified soy, corn, and grain by-products. When they reach optimum weight walk them down death row and process them, adrenaline and all. After all the meat has been processed, complete with 20% unidentified (and unidentifiable) solution added to enhance color and shelf life, wrap it in CO2 filled tubs for shipping to the supermarket distribution center, then on to the supermarket.

Now feed this sh!t to people and claim red meat causes cancer.

I think you hit it right on, Goodpasture.

People need to eat real red meat grown as naturally as possible. Our attempts to imitate nature often don't measure up to the original. Chicken isn't the best substitute, as it is raised the same way you suggest modern meat is produced.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
hillsdown said:
Protein does not make you thick around the belly........CARBS do.

It seems to me the study should have been more directed to what the people were eating and drinking along side of their "meat" dishes.

Make that REFINED CARBS!!!!!!!!

Ben H, I wouldn't worry about eating too much red meat...in a balanced diet, you will be "full" before you are able to consume 'too much' red meat. Modern diet recommendations are politicized!!!! Since the early 1970s, they have been written and promoted by veggies and animal rights types!!!! :?
 

Ben H

Well-known member
If it is in fact true that eating too much red meat leads to colon cancer, then I'm probably going to get it.
 

olderroper

Well-known member
Ben H said:
If it is in fact true that eating too much red meat leads to colon cancer, then I'm probably going to get it.

Well it always easier and cheaper to prevent disease in critters than to fix the problem after it happens. Do a colon cleanse and maybe you'll avoid it.
Learn about it anyway.
The Internet is the information super highway. Educate yourselves.
I think the reason there's so many health problems today is a lack of minerals in our diets. Do you all feed your critters drugs, or vitimins and minerals.

I drink something called Holy Tea that is cleaning out my whole system starting with the colon. I don't have leg cramps anymore since drinking this stuff either. There's all kinds of information out there to help prevent a lot of stuff.
 

graybull

Well-known member
A steak in causing cancer?

Elizabeth M. Whelan?
November 7, 2007

A recent report by the American Institute on Cancer Research (AICR) and the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) has a lot of red-meat-loving Americans worried. AICR's scientific advisory committee concluded that consuming red meat (including beef, lamb, and pork) is causally linked to colon cancer — and recommended we eat fewer burgers, chops and steaks — in favor of a diet comprised primarily of fruits, produce and grains.

What is a meat-lover to do? Some perspective:

• The AICR is an organization whose reason for existence is to establish links between diet and cancer. Every 10 years, it reviews the published literature about how diet and physical activity affect cancer risk. It starts that review with the assumption that a diet-cancer risk exists — and then delves into the literature to find specific studies to support those views. This is not the normal, neutral approach epidemiologists use to investigate disease causation factors.

• While some studies purporting to link meat consumption with colon cancer have found an association between this dietary factor and cancer risk, the mere fact a study shows an association between factor X and health effect Y does not mean X causes Y. Epidemiologists assess evidence on association to determine how significant it is — and how closely it resembles real causation. All cause-and-effect relationships, such as cigarette smoking and lung cancer, are associations — but not all associations rise to the level of true causation (for example, a well-publicized report linking soda consumption and esophageal cancer on the basis of one study).

There are a few criteria scientists use to assess causation. Did the cause precede the effect? How strong is the association? How consistent are the findings from study to study? Is there a "dose-response" relationship — does exposure to large amounts of the variable pose a greater risk than lower levels, as one would expect? Any assessment of the relationship of, for example, cigarette smoking and lung cancer confirms that relationship meets these and other criteria for true causation.

Where do claims about meat and cancer fall in the spectrum from association to causation? For starters, there are no strong associations — nor is there consistency from study to study. For example, with respect to colon cancer, in a pooled analysis of 14 prospective epidemiological studies (an abstract of which was presented at a 2004 meeting of the American Association of Cancer Research), the authors write "in conclusion, [our] prospective data do not support a positive association between higher red meat and fat intake and colorectal cancer."

• It must be recognized there are complexities surrounding any question of diet and cancer — and there are benefit/risk elements to be considered.

For example, one cannot evaluate "diet" as a cause of cancer without taking into account obesity and its established role in boosting the risk of both breast and colon cancer. Individuals who regularly consume a high-fat diet — including substantial servings of red meat — may be obese, and that is the most likely causal link between their diets and elevated cancer rates rather than a carcinogen in meat.

Finally, while the cancer risks of eating meat in moderation remain hypothetical, the nutritional benefits of eating meat are well-established.

Beef, pork and lamb are nutritious foods, being a particularly valuable source of zinc, iron and other minerals, B vitamins, choline and protein. Lean red meat fits in well with a healthy diet. So do not let the scare du jour prevent you from putting meat (in moderate portions) on the family dinner table tonight.

Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).

This is the BEST response to the publicity of this silly study.....and luckily it was published by the Washington Post......not just sent around to beef industry members.

As some of you know.....she still doesn't have it exactly right......as evidenced by these false statements....

" Individuals who regularly consume a high-fat diet — including substantial servings of red meat — may be obese, ...."

"So do not let the scare du jour prevent you from putting meat (in moderate portions) on the family dinner table tonight."

NO NEED FOR MODERATE.....in fact the more beef you eat the better your health will be........remember that each bite of beef replaces something else that is less nutritious.

Still.......by far the best job of responding to this bogus study........hopefully NCBA, R-Calf, AMI and the others will read it.
 

graybull

Well-known member
Opps......gave that liberal rag The Warshington Post.....too much credit.......it was actually printed in the Washington Times.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Graybull said:
As some of you know.....she still doesn't have it exactly right......as evidenced by these false statements....

Not nearly enough know!

One thing they get right is that establishing causation between diet and disease is very difficult(if not impossible) and very expensive to study scientifically. One of, if not the most important, studies occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This is when modern science met isolated cultures that had not been touched by western culture...Central Africa, South Pacific, Artic. Modern diseases of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease were virtually unknown in these cultures that ate a traditional diet that included substantial amounts saturated animal fats (and in the Artic, close to 80% of calories). In every case, when these peoples started eating Western diets (refined sugar, refined starches, white rice), they began developing Western diseases.
 

Ben H

Well-known member
RobertMac,

Are you a Weston Price Foundation member or base your information on his work? Nothing against it, just curious. I'm not a member but did go to the last local chapter pot luck and sold a cooler full of hamburg, plust got a deposit a few days later on a side that is going on the 19th.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Ben H said:
RobertMac,

Are you a Weston Price Foundation member or base your information on his work? Nothing against it, just curious. I'm not a member but did go to the last local chapter pot luck and sold a cooler full of hamburg, plust got a deposit a few days later on a side that is going on the 19th.

Ben, not a member, but prolly should be. Dr. Price was part of the research I mentioned above. My wife bought Sally Fallon's and Dr. Mary Enig's book Nourishing Traditions that opened my eyes...a must read for anyone that wants to eat healthy! Gary Taubes's book Good Calories, Bad Calories mirrors the information on westonaprice.org (someone at CBB should buy this book to understand how they have been duped!!!!)

A couple of things to understand about government and institutional diet recommendations...they are politically motivated...and ignore contradicting research that doesn't fit their PC agenda (vegetarian and animal rights). George McGovern's staff wrote the first government diet recommendations...that should be a clue!!!!
 

Tex

Well-known member
New research indicates that being over 30 lbs. overweight can lead to health problems like cancer, diabetes, etc.

30 lbs. and under did not.
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
Most folks eat thier meat after it's been deep fried at a fast food joint! I'll stick with my diet just like my parents and grandparents did, meat and veggies and fruit all raised on our place. Throw in some whole milk and I will probably be dead by the time ya'll read this. I will always maintain that it's how you cook it and the crap people pile on it that makes perfectly great beef unhealthy. But what would I know? My family has only been doing that for close to 150 years and lives into thier late 80s! :???:
 

cowzilla

Well-known member
People are not overweight from eating beef. People are overweight from NOT getting off there fat butts and going for a walk jog what ever etc. And I don't mean walking down to the local coffee shop for a jelly doughnut :roll:
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
I recall reading some studies that indicated that too much red meat would cause cancer, liver damage and a tendency to follow small meat-bearing animals around the ranch while holding a gun.

Lipstick, dish soap, hair shampoo [if ingested - go figure] any kind of plastic, toe-nail polish and various other forms of non-edible stuff will also bring about a cancerous growth in a human after 40 or 50 years of good healthy living which has included fast food, extra helpings of totally "bad for ya" fats and various forms of dead things only partially cooked.

But the one thing that seemed to me to over-ride all of the BS was the simple little study that came out a few years back that said that every human carries within his or her genome, a tiny little gene that will trigger, at a certain age that is individual to each of us [if we have that gene], the onset of radical cell division that we humans call cancer.

I guess that if we have that gene in us, it doesn't matter what the hell we eat as it is likely gonna kick in any way and then what? Who ya gonna call??? Every male member of my father's side of the family all the way back to the age of lost souls and the time when we were generally hunted as food for other things with large teeth and fast legs, have died of cancer. That tells me that I carry the gene as it tends not to skip any generations.

So, pass me another "Loaded Double Grand-Daddy Bigger Burger" and hey, large fries and a milkshake please, but only after this large pizza has disappeared along with that 72 ounce steak of beautiful black angus red meat dripping with all the trimmings - Alberta style!!!! Oh, and do not make me remind you to pour me a double scotch on-the-rocks after that, or else!!! Hell, make it a triple!!!
 

Latest posts

Top