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

Robertmac, You Will REALLY Like This!!

Mike

Well-known member
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Experts at the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) say Americans can’t afford to wait any longer to make a cancer-protective shift in their eating habits. The evidence linking red meat to colon cancer is now so strong it should prompt a nationwide reduction in red meat consumption, they said.

AICR’s landmark report, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective concluded that the scientific evidence linking red meat (beef, pork and lamb) to colorectal cancer is now convincing. Accordingly, the expert panel who authored the report issued a recommendation to limit consumption of red meat to no more than 18 ounces (cooked) per week and avoid processed meat.

Many Americans eat far greater amounts of red meat per week. Consider a person who often chooses eggs with two sausage links (2oz) for breakfast, or a quarter-pound fast food burger (4oz) at lunch, or a pork chop (6oz) or two for dinner. This person is likely to far exceed the recommended 18 ounces per week.

If such a person eats lunch or dinner at restaurants several times a week, it becomes even more difficult to keep consumption in check. Today, many restaurants offer 9 to 12 ounce servings of steak or roast beef and often compete for business by inflating portion sizes even more.

Cancer experts are asking Americans to assess the amount of red meat they typically eat and substitute poultry or fish more often, or simply increase the amount of meatless meals they enjoy in a given week.

“The meat-and-potatoes mindset is slowly killing us,” said AICR Nutrition Advisor, Karen Collins, MS, RD. “We need to break ourselves of the notion that we need a hunk of red meat at every meal.”

Collins noted, however, that some Americans are just a few ounces over the recommended weekly amount. These individual can start eating for lower cancer risk simply by substituting a hearty vegetable chili and salad for a hamburger at lunchtime, or preparing poultry or fish instead of steak for dinner two nights a week.

Report: Risk Rises with Increased Consumption
According to the AICR report’s analysis of the collected evidence, every 3.5 ounces (100 g) of red meat eaten per day increases risk for colorectal cancer by 30 percent.

What is alarming about this increased risk, Collins said, is the real-world impact that 30 percent figure takes on once its effects are felt across the entire population of the world. “Smokers are a subset of people whose chosen habit places them at much higher risk for lung cancer, but this is different. Everybody eats,” she said. “And everybody who eats a diet high in red meat is at a higher risk of colon cancer, whether they know it or not.”

Given the huge number of people involved, the effect of red meat consumption on colon cancer incidence is immense, Collins said. “If there were a drug that was found to increase risk of a disease by 30 percent, it would get pulled off the shelves.”

AICR is not calling for the elimination of meat from US diets. Instead, the cancer experts are urging Americans to recognize that cutting back on how much red meat they eat every week is an important, cancer-protective step.

Awareness of Meat-Cancer Link Surges, But Will U.S. Diets Change?
Prior to release of the AICR expert report in November 2007, only 36 percent of Americans were aware that diets high in red meat are a cause of cancer, according to an AICR telephone survey of 1022 US adults. Upon its publication, the AICR expert report received a great deal of media and scientific attention. It was also the subject of aggressive statements from the meat industry seeking to discredit the recommendation, which raised the report’s public profile even further.

That furor seems to have had a lingering impact on public awareness. Five months after the November release of the report, AICR has resurveyed Americans on their awareness of the red meat-cancer link. According to this follow-up survey of 1,008 US adults, public awareness that red meat is a cause of cancer has jumped by 18 percentage points, to 54 percent.

According to government statistics, a gradual shift away from red meat has been underway in the U.S. for decades. The USDA’s Economic Research Service reports that the average American’s annual consumption of beef has decreased by nearly 14 pounds (224 ounces) since 1970.

That decrease was likely sparked by public education campaigns that focused on the fat content of red meat and the effect it has on health, such as increasing the risk of heart disease. Collins noted that although choosing lean cuts does play a protective role in heart health, diets high in red meat – no matter its fat content – increase risk for colorectal cancer.

AICR’s new brochure The Facts About Red Meat and Processed Meat gives practical, everyday advice for making a cancer-fighting transformation to your diet and provides more information on the science behind the meat-cancer link. The brochure can be read, ordered, or downloaded at www.aicr.org/redmeat. Or call 1-800-843-8114, extension 466, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, for a complimentary single copy.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Hey, Mike...have you found the CBB/NCBA response? mrj, help us out!!!

To be charitable, these people are idiots.

The largest percentage of the Paleolithic diet was red meat and animal fats because that was the most consistent food source in the world of the hunter/gatherer. Intuits were an extremely healthy culture(before they were introduced to the western diet) and subsisted on a diet of over 80% meat and fat...not much else to eat on the tundra!!!!! If this report had any truth to it, mankind would have become extent long before we were able to create refined flour, refined sugar, hydrogenated vegetable oils(trans fats) and a multitude of chemical additives in our food supply. How were these ruled out as the possible cause of cancers???????

How many of these "researchers?" are vegetarians or members of the Humane Society? What is their real agenda????? I bet they all believe global warming is cause by animal agriculture!!!!

And again, it has never been proven that animal fats are the cause of heart disease.
 

mrj

Well-known member
RobertMac, when you write "Intuits", to whom do you refer?

Your context indicates it is probably the Eskimo/Eskimo/Indian/Siberian Amanitas or similar indigenous peoples......while your spelling indicatesit may be the various businesses and/or values as listed under the Google heading for that spelling.........so which is it?

Given your usual ill-informed smears of CBB and NCBA, it is difficult to determine whether you know of whom and of what you write in any case.

Did you make any attempt to learn what either group is actually doing re. the so called 'news story', or what has been done in the past in similar cases?

What effect on obesity and or general health, if any, do you give the fact that all people, indigenous or not, have vastly easier lives requireing far fewer total caloric expenditure than in the days when most of their time was spent finding a usually less than adequate supply of food, contrasted with today when anything people desire to eat is relatively easy for most people to get?

mrj
 

cowzilla

Well-known member
That report might explain why I don't feel to good today :( I was with a couple of buds yeasterday drinking beer and BBQ ing prime rib steaks.
Bad Steaks Bad Steaks 8) 8)
My eyes hurt too :?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj said:
RobertMac, when you write "Intuits", to whom do you refer?

Your context indicates it is probably the Eskimo/Eskimo/Indian/Siberian Amanitas or similar indigenous peoples......while your spelling indicatesit may be the various businesses and/or values as listed under the Google heading for that spelling.........so which is it?

As soon as I can find indicatesit in a dictionary, I'm sure I'll understand what you are talking about!?!?!? :shock: :???: :roll: :roll:
In the mean time, I'll call the "Inuit"..."Eskimos" to keep from confusing you.

mrj said:
Did you make any attempt to learn what either group is actually doing re. the so called 'news story', or what has been done in the past in similar cases?

All I was asking you for was NCBA/CBB's response to this report...can you produce it or not???????

I know what they think about the saturated fat/cholesterol/heart disease propaganda...they have accepted it as fact and recommend people eat less fat...which means many will eat less beef to avoid the saturated fat. I would point out the decline in beef's market share, but you will accuse me "ill-informed smears of CBB and NCBA"...the truth must be eating at you!!!!!

mrj said:
What effect on obesity and or general health, if any, do you give the fact that all people, indigenous or not, have vastly easier lives requireing far fewer total caloric expenditure than in the days when most of their time was spent finding a usually less than adequate supply of food, contrasted with today when anything people desire to eat is relatively easy for most people to get?

You repeat the "company line" put out by the processed food industry to deflect any scrutinizing of their "packaged, food-like substances" that consumers are duped into buying because of their 'healthy' label claims! :eek: :shock: :eek: :?

I practice what I preach(no disrespect to preachers)...
In January my wife changed our diet...eliminated carbohydrates, sugars, and most all packaged foods. We eat foods almost exclusively the way God made them(most being cooked, of course)...lots of meat, green leaf vegetables, and very few carbohydrate vegetables...basically, the Atkins diet. My wife, my daughter and myself have all lost about 15 pounds. This was without calorie restriction, just changing the diet. And, guys, I DID NOT give up my beer!!!!! :D

Before you accuse me of being ill-informed, you had better do your own research(other than on beef.org) and learn how the human body responds to different types of food.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Yes........we both make spelling and/or typing errors.

Because there WERE 'results' on the Goggle search for both spellings, I felt it only fair to ask which you refer to. So much for trying to be "fair" to you.

Having had relatives who lived among Inuit people in a very remote area from about 1937 till mid '40's teaching and acting as the doctor, dentist, preacher, undertaker, etc., till whenever the next plane carrying whomever was needed came in, which was often long after the 'need' had to be filled, I do know something about them and was aware of their ancestral eating patterns.

You do appear to persist in ignoring the facts of modern life re. vastly 'easier' lives for most people resulting in needing far fewer calories while we love to eat as if we were doing far more physical work, as well as enjoying 'richer' foods as haing any bearing on obesity and health problems.

You also ignore the FACT that there was/is credible science supporting the "processed food industry" until quite recently, altho I will give you that it may have been skewed. NO ONE has shown any proof whether that was intentionally or honestly done.

FACT: some people promoting organic, natural, AND grass-fed foods have been something less than factual in their claims re. health benefits, safety, and food values over 'conventionally produced' foods more favorably than is true, too.

So, are you saying those who "preach" that we should only eat raw foods as that is truly "the way God made them them" are wrong????

Your family are doing the commendable thing, making the changes YOU BELIEVE to be right for your personal diets. However, not every person reacts in the same way to the same foods.

NCBA and CBB must follow accepted dietary GUIDLINES and protocols for a majority of people, including those who have health problems. Unfortunately, there are some people whose bodies can not handle fat, even the animal fats.

You probably will refuse to believe that I, too, believe animal fats, or at least beef fat, to be more healthful FOR MANY PEOPLE than are the fats or oils refined from seeds and grains. I still wouldn't want to eat, nor do I believe it is necessarily beneficial to eat a half inch ore more of fat, even that 'naturally' occuring around the edge of a good steak!

IF you are not ill-informed about what NCBA or CBB has, or has not done in many instances, you sure don't like to admit they do any good things with the Beef Checkoff, as I recall very few instances when you have done so.

I do know that there has been positive action taken, as there have been reports in some ag papers, but until I have time to look them up to get it right, I won't speculate about it.

Out of curiosity, do you have any validation of the AICR and their credibility? Such as, are they like the Center for Science in the Public Interest, or some of those "Physicians" publicity groups which seem to have few of the people listed in their name actually on their boards or staff? It is way too easy for some official sounding 'group' to sow seeds of food fears in fancy press releases, leaving those who stand to lose something having to verify the facts of the situation.

mrj



mrj
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj, we are on the same side concerning this article and AIRC...I think. I don't have the time or the inclination to do research on this group...that would be one of the jobs that a cattlemen's organization should do! :eek: And I don't know if ANY OF THEM have done anything to counter this report. That's why I asked...do you know of a response from NCBA or CBB? I would like to read it.

I mentioned our diet change to illustrate that we did one thing to cause the weight lose...eliminated refine carbohydrates from our diet(not all, but most). No increase in "physical work" or exercise...no reduction in calories, if anything, increased calories because meat and fat are higher in calories per ounce. The FACT is that the human body reacts differently to different foods.

The simple fact is that increases in chronic diseases parallels the increases in refined carbohydrate, vegetable oils, and processed foods in the western diet. All of these have had dramatic increases over the last one hundred years, yet this group wants to blame a cancer on a food group that has been part of the human diet since the beginning of time. Common since says that's ridiculous!!!!!
 

Latest posts

Top