We've suspected the barbie for decades as carcinogenic, particularly
when enthusiastic cooks char the meat (I've seen some lay steaks
directly on red-hot coals to char them deliberately). But this research
expands the threat significantly, to include all the primary means of
cooking meat:
April 3, 2006 (Washington) -- Salad anyone? A new study in rats suggests
that well-done beef, chicken, and even fish contain a substance that may
promote the growth of prostate tumors.
Switching preparation methods may not help: Grilling, searing, and
broiling are all equally risky, says researcher Angelo DeMarzo, MD, of
the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore.
The researchers studied a chemical called PhIP that is formed by cooking
so-called muscle meats such as beef, pork, fowl, and fish at very high
temperatures. The process sets off a chemical reaction between a protein
and a chemical found in the meat, and the two come together to form a
new substance that is a suspect in cancer.
According to DeMarzo, the substance was discovered by a Japanese chemist
who was watching his wife cook fish. "It occurred to him that the smoke
coming off the grill may have carcinogenic [cancer-causing] chemicals,"
he says.
Sure enough, early studies showed that rats fed PhIP developed
precancerous lesions of the prostate -- but only in the front, or
ventral, part of the organ.
PhIP a Double Whammy
To begin to unravel why the lesions congregate in this area, DeMarzo's
colleague Yasutomo Nakai, MD, started mixing PhIP into rats' meals.
Their findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American
Association for Cancer Research.
After just four weeks, the rats had significantly more mutations in
their prostates than rats not slipped the chemical.
But mutations alone don't cause cancer. First they have to be initiated,
a process in which the mutated cells divide and divide and divide some
more, producing more and more copies of themselves that carry the mutation.
And in the rats fed PhIP, there was a significant rise in the number of
cells undergoing division only in the front part of the prostate, "which
suggest strongly that the chemical is acting as an initiator in the
ventral area alone," DeMarzo says.
But even initiated cells, left alone, are relatively harmless. They can
only become tumor cells if acted upon by a promoter -- substances that
cause these cells to replicate and grow more quickly. And after eight
weeks on the PhIP-rich diet, there was a significant increase in
proliferation only in the front part of the prostate.
"In other words, this chemical acts as both an initiator and a promoter
of cancer cells, but only in the frontal lobe. It's a double whammy,"
DeMarzo tells WebMD.
Inflammation May Drive Process
But the researchers still didn't know why the frontal part of the
prostate was so attractive to the cancer-causing process. And then they
observed an increase in certain inflammatory cells in the same region.
Since inflammation is known to cause cancer in many organs, these cells
may be driving the process, DeMarzo says.
"Now we have to take it to the next step and see if the inflammatory
cells are innocent bystanders or really are playing a role in causing
the disease," he says.
A Warning for Men With Early Cancer
Christine B. Ambrosone, PhD, of the division of cancer prevention and
population sciences at the Roswell Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y.,
says the findings may have important implications for men with early
prostate cancer.
Many prostate cancers are so slow growing that doctors may recommend a
strategy of watchful waiting to see if the cancers will actually cause
problems before starting treatment.
"But this suggests that [cooking meat at very high temperatures] may
make these early tumors grow more quickly," Ambrosone tells WebMD. "Even
while we await confirmation in humans, it's not like avoiding well-done
meat will do any harm."
SOURCES: American Association of Cancer Research annual meeting,
Washington, April 1-6, 2006. Angelo DeMarzo, MD, Johns Hopkins Kimmel
Cancer Center, Baltimore. Christine B. Ambrosone, PhD, division of
cancer prevention and population sciences, Roswell Cancer Institute,
Buffalo, N.Y.
I.P.
Alan Meyer - 05 Apr 2006 00:38 GMT
Cows are docile, inoffensive animals, but they have their
ways of exacting their revenge.
Alan
juniper - 05 Apr 2006 02:40 GMT
> Cows are docile, inoffensive animals, but they have their
> ways of exacting their revenge.
>
> Alan
What about those quiet fishes?
Alan Meyer - 05 Apr 2006 02:46 GMT
> > Cows are docile, inoffensive animals, but they have their
> > ways of exacting their revenge.
> >
> > Alan
>
> What about those quiet fishes?
I understand that they have been quietly eating other fish
that eat other fish that eat organisms that absorb mercury
and DDT from agricultural water. They concentrate the
poisons. So I guess they get back at us for polluting their
environment as well as for eating them.
Alan
juniper - 05 Apr 2006 02:52 GMT
> They concentrate the
> poisons.
CHEMO!
Bob Anthony - 05 Apr 2006 14:01 GMT
Conclusion: Eating causes eventual death.
B.A.
Alan Meyer - 05 Apr 2006 18:36 GMT
> Conclusion: Eating causes eventual death.
I think that must be right. Look for example at redwood trees.
They don't eat a thing and some of them are thousands of years
old.
Alan
DonC - 05 Apr 2006 18:38 GMT
The most accurate correlation I've read is that being born causes death.
> Conclusion: Eating causes eventual death.
>
> B.A.
I.P. Freely - 05 Apr 2006 21:27 GMT
> The most accurate correlation I've read is that being born causes death.
There's still room for some doubt, because about 10% of the data is not
in yet.
I.P.
DonC - 06 Apr 2006 01:48 GMT
>> The most accurate correlation I've read is that being born causes death.
>
> There's still room for some doubt, because about 10% of the data is not in
> yet.
>
> I.P.
Seems like I read somewhere that there are more people living on Earth right
now than have died to date. But then my memory seems to fail me a little bit
more each day. Buy, yes at least 10% haven't yet completed the trial : )
I.P. Freely - 05 Apr 2006 21:31 GMT
> The most accurate correlation I've read is that being born causes death.
Statistics dispute that. A majority of all the people ever born on Earth
are still alive.
I.P.
DonC - 06 Apr 2006 01:52 GMT
>> The most accurate correlation I've read is that being born causes death.
>
> Statistics dispute that. A majority of all the people ever born on Earth
> are still alive.
>
> I.P.
Man, you're quick! I couldn't even bring up Google before you confirmed my
memory.
My statement reminds me of a claim that pickles are bad for you as 100% of
people eating them in 1870 ended up dying.
I.P. Freely - 06 Apr 2006 18:31 GMT
>>> The most accurate correlation I've read is that being born causes death.
>> Statistics dispute that. A majority of all the people ever born on Earth
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Man, you're quick! I couldn't even bring up Google before you confirmed my
> memory.
I'm also wrong. I typed that off the cuff, then thought I'd check out
the rumor, so stashed it to be corrected. Didn't know until just now
that it got sent. The "facts" -- a WAG obviously -- seem to support that
about 10% of all the humans ever born are alive now.
I.P.
juniper - 06 Apr 2006 19:52 GMT
> that it got sent. The "facts" -- a WAG obviously -- seem to support that
> about 10% of all the humans ever born are alive now.
What's a WAG?
DonC - 06 Apr 2006 22:53 GMT
Wild Arse Guess : )
>> that it got sent. The "facts" -- a WAG obviously -- seem to support that
>> about 10% of all the humans ever born are alive now.
>
> What's a WAG?
Steve Kramer - 06 Apr 2006 23:17 GMT
>> that it got sent. The "facts" -- a WAG obviously -- seem to support that
>> about 10% of all the humans ever born are alive now.
>
> What's a WAG?
It is the most basic principle of military scientific problem-solving.
Steve Kramer - 06 Apr 2006 23:15 GMT
>> The most accurate correlation I've read is that being born causes death.
>
> Statistics dispute that. A majority of all the people ever born on Earth
> are still alive.
Sure, if you confine your theory to humans.
Steve Kramer - 06 Apr 2006 01:40 GMT
> Conclusion: Eating causes eventual death.
>
> B.A.
So does not eating
Glassman - 06 Apr 2006 05:21 GMT
> We've suspected the barbie for decades as carcinogenic, particularly
> when enthusiastic cooks char the meat (I've seen some lay steaks
> directly on red-hot coals to char them deliberately). But this research
> expands the threat significantly, to include all the primary means of
> cooking meat:
I've read this before. As you know I eat tons of meat almost daily on my
8 year, high fat low carb diet. Luckily for me I love all my meats on the
rare side, even pork. I doens't mnake me very popular at restaurants
though....

Signature
JK Sinrod
www.sinrodstudios.com
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com
I.P. Freely - 07 Apr 2006 01:49 GMT
> As you know I eat tons of meat almost daily on my
> 8 year, high fat low carb diet. Luckily for me I love all my meats on the
> rare side, even pork. I doens't mnake me very popular at restaurants
> though....
Makes me wonder by what means we're supposed to cook our meat, whether
it's salmon or bacon, rare or well done. Do they think 4 days on a warm
plate is the cooking equivalence of 10 minutes over red-hot charcoal?
You can appreciate this:
Some friends at their home once asked me how long I wanted my steak
cooked (broiled in an oven).
I said "2-3 minutes on each side".
They looked puzzled, repeated their question, and explained that this
was raw meat, not precooked.
I repeated my answer, and added that want it merely wounded, not dead
... just pooped enough that it was easy to catch.
I'm not kidding: they put their steaks in more than 20 minutes before
mine went in.
There was not one drop of moisture left in their meat. They could have
gotten 20,000 miles of tread wear from it ... if it didn't BREAK first.
Been wondering where you were ... worried you may have fallen off the
face of the earth.
I.P.
Glassman - 08 Apr 2006 03:40 GMT
> > As you know I eat tons of meat almost daily on my
> > 8 year, high fat low carb diet. Luckily for me I love all my meats on the
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> I.P.
Been avoiding my needed PSA test.... don't want to think about it I
guess?

Signature
JK Sinrod
www.sinrodstudios.com
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com
Steve Kramer - 08 Apr 2006 12:29 GMT
> Been avoiding my needed PSA test.... don't want to think about it I
> guess?
3½ years later of < 0.1 PSAs and you're avoiding? Interesting. Do you feel
some new dread or is it like this every 6 months?

Signature
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05,
2/06
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132
Non Illegitimi Carborundum